Movie Review: PSYCHO

PSYCHO

1960

R

"She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"

-- Norman Bates

Psycho is a 1960 horror film directed by Alfred Hitchcock that many consider to be one of the director's greatest achievements. The story begins in Phoenix, Arizona, where a young secretary named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) embezzles forty-thousand dollars from her employer then skips town in the hopes of running away with her long-distance boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin), who lives in the small town of Fairvale, California. As Marion makes her way north, she stumbles upon the Bates Motel, a small establishment off the main highway, and decides to stay the night before pushing on to her destination. She meets the young Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), the caretaker of the motel, and after exchanging some pleasantries, Marion elects to turn in for the night. Before bed, however, she opts to take a shower...

I think you'd be a bit hard-pressed to find many a film fan who doesn't know the next sequence of events, as Psycho's shower scene has reached a certain stature of fame, or infamy, over the years. From that scene, the rest of the film serves more as a mystery than as a horror film, but none of that really takes away from the fact that Psycho manages to be one of the greatest films ever made. 

For me, Psycho has been a recognizable film for as long as I can remember. To be honest, my first interaction with it was a rather negative one. When I was about four years old, my family decided to take a trip to Universal Studios Hollywood. The park had a "special effects stage" attraction, where one of the rooms focused on the cinematography of Hitchcock's films. At such a young age, I was introduced to the shower scene, and I was absolutely horrified. I instantly became terrified of bathrooms and showers, and it took me quite a while to get past that fear. In addition, it took me another sixteen years before I could sit down and watch Psycho in its entirety, but boy am I glad that I did. 

The history of the film itself is a rather incredible one itself. The making of the film is chronicled well in David Thomson's book The Moment of Psycho, and Thomson offers some interesting insight on the film as well, if you have a chance to read it. One of my favorite little tidbits about the film's release is the fact that Hitchcock essentially forbade anyone from entering theaters after the film had begun to play (a tactic that is alluded to in the trailer at the end of this review). His reasoning? Hitchcock thought that a viewer needed to see Psycho from the very start lest they miss an important piece of information. It was a truly groundbreaking idea for the time, and audiences ate it up. 

Over the years, Psycho has become considered one of the most groundbreaking and important films to appear in cinematic history. Arguably Hitchcock's finest film, it does manage to live up to all the hype. The screenplay itself is a wonderfully-written mystery that almost plays as two separate stories. In the first half, we have a tale of love, crime and extortion, but as soon as the shower scene occurs and we as the audience lose our main focal point in Janet Leigh, we're left a little bit adrift. That's when storyline two kicks in, and we're thrown into the midst of a murder mystery in which we think we know the answer. The kicker? Well, I'll leave that to the film and to Hitchcock. What's truly great about the screenplay, however, is that in the midst of all this horror, confusion and mystery, we still get an ample supply of comedy. If you pay close attention, there's a number of bits of dialogue that are meant to be played out for comedic effect, and they're so perfectly-placed that they might even manage to draw a bit of out-loud laughter. Essentially, this screenplay has it all: horror, mystery, comedy, drama and romance. It brings it all together in such an effective manner that there just might be something for everyone.

While the storyline tends to ebb and flow throughout the film, one thing that does remain consistent is the high level of acting performances we receive. Leigh starts out as the apparent lead, and she does an incredible job with the role. At times, she manages to seem both vulnerable and invincible at once, and it's this duality that makes her both appealing and fascinating until her untimely and sudden demise. From there, the disillusioned audience has no choice but to pick up on the film's seeming sub-lead: Perkins's Norman Bates. And let me tell you, Perkins steals the show. The more I watch the film, the more I become mesmerized by just how strong a performance Perkins manages to bring forth. It's a subtle but profound type of brilliance, and I think it's often under-appreciated. Perkins slips through so many emotions even in the course of only one scene that it might be difficult for the casual viewer to keep up with it all, but I would argue that he brought forth one of the greatest performances in cinematic history. 

The rest of the cast fills out rather well mostly because each person plays their part to a tee. Vera Miles comes in for a supporting role as Marion's distraught sister. She teams up with Gavin's Loomis hoping to find answers. Gavin is probably the weakest link in the film (a thought that Hitchcock shared), but even he isn't all that terrible. It's just that, in comparison to the talent around him, there just wasn't any way for him to keep up. Of all the supporting characters, however, I have to tip my hat most to Martin Balsam, who plays the private detective Milton Arbogast. He's a wonderfully-consistent addition to the cast, and he and Perkins combine for one of the film's best scenes. It's just a well-rounded cast all around, and I think the acting in the film has taken a bit of a back seat to the screenplay and the direction itself. Someone needs to herald it, so why shouldn't I?

One of the most effective components of Psycho, however, is its cinematic score. Composed by Bernard Herrmann, I can't quite say it's the most instantly recognizable pieces of music, but it definitely has to be high on the list. Though not quite as iconic as, say, John Williams's score for Jaws, I think Herrmann still managed to create something truly brilliant with his score. The bit from the shower sequence might be the most recognizable from the film, but the rest of the score is so splendidly-crafted that it's hard no to enjoy it from start to finish.

At the end of the day, Psycho proves to rank near, if not at, the top of the list of horror films, and it also manages to be ranked very highly on the list of greatest films of all time. I myself would have to place it within the top five greatest films I've ever seen, and that's saying quite a bit considering the amount of films I've seen. If you haven't had a chance to take in this iconic film, then maybe this Halloween season should be the time to do so. It's not as terrifying as it may have used to be, but it's still so profound that it's easy to understand why it's reached such an idolized place in cinematic history. Congratulations, Mr. Hitchcock. You created a masterpiece.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: DINOSAURUS!

DINOSAURUS!

1960
Not Rated

Dinosaurus! is a 1960 B-movie adventure film directed by Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. The storyline centers around a small Caribbean island where a group of American contractors are attempting to create a man-made harbor. After blasting some of the seafloor, head contractor Bart Thompson (Ward Ramsey) learns that the explosions have uncovered two frozen dinosaurs - a tyrannosaurus and a brontosaurus. He informs Mike Hacker (Fred Engelberg), the island manager and Bart's immediate superior with whom he constantly fights, of the discovery. Because the dinosaurs are frozen, they are presumed to be dead. Bart leaves the massive creatures in the charge of one of the hired hands, but a late night storm manages to awaken the prehistoric beasts. When Bart learns of the escaped creatures, he and his right-hand man Chuck (Paul Lukather) decide to lead the village people to an abandoned fortress to keep them safe. With the help of his lover Betty (Kristina Hanson) and a young boy named Julio (Alan Roberts), Bart does his best to avoid the dinosaurs that now roam freely on the island. And all the while, Hacker chases a re-animated caveman (Gregg Martell) who washed ashore with the dinosaurs...

Basically, we've got your standard B-movie fare with Dinosaurus! Had it not been for NetFlix Instant Watch, I probably never would have heard about this particular film, but I'm oh so grateful that it was at my viewing disposal. It has everything that a fantastic B-movie needs: a sketchy screenplay, shoddy acting, and unrealistic visual effects that border on the laughable. And all of that makes watching Dinosaurus! an entirely enjoyable experience.

Now, the screenplay isn't the worst I've ever seen, but there's definitely enough to make it "bad." The story itself isn't the problem. Sure, it takes a little bit of suspension of belief to assume that two dinosaurs could be frozen underwater and unearthed by depth charges. It also takes a huge leap of faith to believe that the said corpses would be re-animated after being struck by lightning. But once you can get past all that, the story moves rather smoothly. No, the biggest travesty in the screenplay is, as is often the case, the dialogue. It's all relatively laughable, to be honest. You'll be rolling your eyes with some of the supposed one-liners they throw out.

The acting is equally bad, with a couple of individuals taking the cake for just how bad they are. Ramsey and Hanson aren't too shabby, and Lukather holds his own with those two. I couldn't stand Engelberg's character for a couple of reasons: first, he was just a bad man bent on abusing a child and disrespecting women; second, Engelberg's "accent" shifted way too often throughout the film. At one moment, he sounded Spanish; the next, he could've been French. It just wasn't consistent, but it added to the hilarity. The young Alan Roberts was by far the most annoying part of the film, and his Spanglish was downright dreadful (and yes, I realize that's more the screenplay's fault than his own), but I found myself laughing at everything he had to say. I would like to say that I thought Martell played a rather good Neanderthal. In a different film, I might've been able to take him close to seriously.

The visual effects are okay, but they're nothing terribly stellar. The stop motion animation of the dinosaurs remains relatively consistent throughout the film, but it's still fun to see something so dated. Speaking of dated, it's also interesting to see how much of a change our thought process on dinosaurs has changed since 1960. The tyrannosaurus and "brontosaurus" (now known as "apatosaurus") both walk with their tails dragging on the ground, a piece of information that is no longer believed by paleontologists. Still, that's what the general thinking was back then, so the film does date itself a little bit with those little notes.

Overall, Dinosaurus! is not a film that you should be critiquing all that strongly. I feel like I've trounced it a little too much in this review, but it's definitely one of the more entertaining B-movies I've had the opportunity to see. It easily falls into the ranks of "so bad, it's good," so I think it's worth your time if you've got eighty minutes to kill. Just go in expecting something terrible, and I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: F
1 Thumb Up

Movie Review: THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS

THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS

1960
Unrated

The Little Shop of Horrors is a 1960 sci-fi film directed by Roger Corman that led to a 1986 remake of the same name. Gravis Mushnick (Mel Welles) owns a rundown florist shop that's just barely scraping by on Skid Row. He employs two workers: the nervous and dorky Seymour Krelboin (Jonathan Haze) and the ditsy but beautiful Audrey Fulquard (Jackie Joseph) with whom Seymour is infatuated. When Seymour ruins a customer's order, Mushnick threatens to fire him. In response, Seymour mentions that he has been nurturing a special plant the likes of which no one has ever seen. Mushnick gives him one week to bring the plant, which he aptly names "Audrey Junior," back to health in the hopes that the eccentric piece of flora can generate some revenue for the store. Seymour exhausts all the normal options for maintaining the plant's health, but one night, it begins to speak (with voice work from Charles B. Griffith), calling out "Feed me" just after Seyour pricks his finger on another plant. On a whim, he attempts to feed the plant drops of his blood, and it is immediately satisfied. The next morning, Audrey Junior has quadrupled in size, forcing Seymour to find other sources of blood and flesh to keep the plant healthy for his employer. As his life descends into a nightly string of murder, Seymour begins to question whether the new-found glory he has received as a brilliant botanist is worth the moral price of what he has to do in order to keep his prize alive.

For those of you who've been reading me long enough, you'll know that I immediately fell in love with the 1986 musical version of Little Shop of Horrors (the link to that review is given in the above paragraph). Because of that, I was rather interested to see the source material which was this 1960 film. Roger Corman, ever the king of B-movies, strikes gold here, providing more of a sci-fi comedy than anything truly horrifying as was the original intention of the film. Perhaps this was scary back in the day, but in a year where Psycho dominated the horror scene, I don't think that anyone truly could have been scared by this film's goofy premise.

"Goofy" is definitely the best word to describe The Little Shop of Horrors. Let's start with the screenplay. While the actual story is a little simplistic, it definitely does enough to captivate your interest. I mean, to be fair, if you're watching a movie about a human-eating plant, you're probably not looking for something terribly brilliant (although, with the musical, that's almost what you'd be getting). And this movie's by no means brilliant, but it's definitely fun. The dialogue is a little bit dorky, and there are a few lines where you'll be scratching your head wondering if you heard the character correctly. But while you're scratching your head, you're bound to have a gigantic smile on your face. That's exactly what this story and the dialogue do: bring a smile to your face, be it out of comedy or absurdity or just plain goofiness.

The actors help to bring that type of feel to the movie, playing each character to a tee (at least, I'm assuming, considering it seems like the characters were written a little bit awkwardly). Haze, Joseph and Welles are good as our three leads, and you can definitely see where Rick Moranis and Ellen Greene got the ideas for their characters in the 1986 version - they're nearly spot on from the original actors. Like the musical, we also have a number of smaller roles that are rather stellar. Dick Miller plays a random man who happens upon the flower shop in search of flowers he can eat. John Herman Shaner plays a local dentist with a knack for instilling pain on his patients (a role that Steve Martin played perfectly in the remake). But like the remake, the best performance has to go to the pain-loving dental patient, this time played by a young Jack Nicholson (he was played by Bill Murray in the musical). I'm not sure who I liked better in that particular role because I loved Murray's portrayal. However, Nicholson's manic energy is just too much to ignore, and he easily brings the best scene to the screen in this film. And it is a little bit shocking to see him as such a young man - I think he was twenty-three when this film was released. It's a short scene, so I've elected to insert it here:

Despite the fact that I put that clip in this review, you really should give this film a watch, especially if you're a fan of the musical. It's not quite as good as the 1986 version, but it serves it's purpose very well. The ending is a little bit different - and a little darker, at that - and I'm still debating whether I like it or not; however, it doesn't take away from the fact that this film is totally worth your time.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B2 Thumbs Up