Pop Leibel

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pop Leibel

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Mountains
  • Interests
    I like to climb up the giant faces of past presidents.

Recent Profile Visitors

367 profile views
  1. Dude, the good Prof is on Twitter and usually answers questions there. I've sent him a few. Yours, Pop.
  2. I think Norman Bates should pay a visit to a certain "classmate".
  3. I'd like some reaction from the students on the decision by Gus Van Sant to do a remake of Psycho (1998). Terrible movie by such a great director. Why would he do a remake using almost the same storyboards as the original? Why not put your own spin on the idea if, in fact, you were going to even attempt another version? Needed the money? Pressure from the studio? I admire Van Sant a lot, but the remake was an awful decision.
  4. You know Marion is going to get "stuffed" because of her name >> "Crane". Norman enjoys stuffing birds. Almost as good as the shower scene is the "clean up" scene right after. Norman is so tidy! Looks like he's done this a time or two. Mother don't play 'dat sh*t. Another signature scene in the picture is the first interview of Norman by Arbogast. Top notch acting by both Balsam and Perkins. Arbogast keeps catching Norman in lie after lie. Norman continues to peck at his little bag of candies. Little does Arbogast know, he'll soon have a big knife planted in his forehead. Is Arbogast's body in the swamp, too? I forgot. I'll try and look for it Wednesday night. Edit: I found the interview scene with Arbogast and Norman: Sorry, doesn't work. Go to Youtube. It's there.
  5. Very much like the Hawks film. I don't think Hitchcock was big into homages, but if he ever did one, it might have been here. Probably not, though.
  6. I DVR'd this film and watched it last night. Someone else on here pointed this out, and I agree, that Uncle Charlie was not the widow murderer. Were there tons of circumstantial evidence? Yes, loads of it, but we never see Uncle Charlie do anything until the end, and then, I think he's finally at rope's end. Reluctantly, he must dispose of "Girl Charlie". He could never have a moment's peace if he allows her to live. He knows that only too well. Remember, Uncle Charlie is kind of insane anyway (although, no murderer). There was the scene at the bank where he shows his a$$, and then the other times when he goes on one of his tirades. Hitchcock goes to great lengths to NOT show Uncle Charlie doing anything wrong. We never see him lock the garage door or turn the car on. We never see him put the key back in the ignition. We never see the entire inscription on the ring. We never see him booby-trap the back stairs. (Yes, we see a figure from the back that may be Uncle Charlie, but we're not sure.) The only bad thing we see Uncle Charlie do is throw a glass against the wall. Big deal. Why was the other suspect back east "running from the police". Maybe he was the murderer. I believe Uncle Charlie got a raw deal getting crushed by the oncoming locomotive. Let him get missed by the train and then sneak away unnoticed. Then, we never know whether he kills again or if he was innocent. The ambiguous ending is always better. I wish I could have consulted Hitch on some of these things. Remember at the beginning on the film how cynical Girl Charlie was? Before her uncle even showed up? Maybe Girl Charlie is on her way to becoming just like Uncle Charlie? Especially now that she's become so embittered from that ordeal. One thing I'd like to add is, I don't like the romance angle with the detective. Unnecessary, underdeveloped, and completely unrealistic. Not a good move by Hitch and the writers. This fault keeps 'Shadow' from getting into my Top 5 Hitchcock pictures. Which is: 5) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) 4) Rear Window 3) Vertigo 2) Psycho 1) North By Northwest
  7. Remember, Eve is a spy. It's not just "love" for her at this point. She's working. She's sexy. She's confident. She's working her magic on Roger. Sucking him in. Pun intended. Hitchcock loved the absurd. The sunglasses are hysterical on Thornhill. There's no way they can disguise him. This entire film can be seen as a "Roadrunner cartoon." Hitch does whatever he wants to. The situations he puts Thornhill in keep stacking up, each one more ludicrous than the next. This is a great comedy. The "O" in "R.O.T" could have several meanings. The expression "Oh!". A hole. An open mouth. The last image of Eve blowing out the match is reminiscent of "Slim" telling Bogart she's going to put her lips together and "blow".
  8. All of the opening credits are happening inside of Kim Vovak's brain. The swirly things are making us dizzy. Kim Novak's face is beautiful. The last (most powerful) image is Hitchcock's name coming out of Novak's right eye. Hitch is saying, "I am the seer here. I am inside of Madeleine. I control her. I am making Scotty insane. I am controlling you, too. I am hypnotizing everyone because I'm such a killer director." Didn't Bergman copy Hitchcock with the extreme close-up of Liv Ullmann's face in 'Persona'?
  9. Not many films are flawless; even with Hitchcock. But, this one 'Rear Window' is pretty close. 'Psycho' has the goofy scene at the end where the psychiatrist explains everything. 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' has the terrible acting by Doris Day. 'Notorious' is a little too talky. 'Vertigo' is somewhat slow moving with some serious plot holes (even for Hitch >>>like, how does Jimmy S. not know that Judy is Madeleine? Come on! Neither one wore a bra. Okay, you can't tell it's Superman if he has glasses on, either.)
  10. Boy, is it hot. You can see the sweat bubbling off of Jeff's forehead. No air-conditioning. Kinda important. They couldn't have done this movie if it were winter. Hitch introduces the entire film, everything we need to know, in the first two minutes, without dialog. This would take most directors at least 15-20 (boring) minutes, and then they'd probably screw it up anyway. Hitch's version is tight, economic, humorous, and informative. Burks' camera work is phenomenal and so is the art direction. All of the little apartments have their own look. No two are the same. One thing I've noticed about Hitchcock's sets is that they're very realistic (hyper-realistic?), but at the same time, you have this bizarre stuff going on. Dreadful things are happening in everyday situations. Does this increase the audience's emotional involvement? You betcha. This has to be Hitchcock's favorite film because he IS Jeff. Jeff is Alfred. One more thing I'd briefly like to point out is that >> Hitchcock ALWAYS has a naked (half-naked) woman in his movies. Go all the way back to 'The Pleasure Garden.' In every film we've watched, so far, we get to see some nice leg. Get down with your bad self, Hitch. Why does he insist on doing that? He likes naked women himself. He knows the audience will like it, and then the word of mouth will help promote the film. Good idea, Alfred.
  11. People wear such nice clothes back then. Ward Cleaver woke up in bed with a three piece suit on. Incredible.
  12. Some of Hitchcock's early films are very good (The 39 Steps, Blackmail, The Lady Vanishes) but the period from Notorious (and after), is where I really start to get hooked on Hitch. 'Strangers on a Train' is one of his best films. The merry-go-round scene is fantastic. The wife's murder is spooky. Robert Walker is a great villain. Bruno wears wonderful shoes. Guy wears nice shoes as well, but they are brown. Please note that it is Guy who sits down next to Bruno (and kicks him), not the other way around. Guy initiates the encounter between the two men, but Bruno says, "excuse me." He is polite, yet psychotic. Walker's Bruno is one of the best characters ever put to film. The music is lovely. Tiomkin is Hitchcock's best (arguably). The music is alternately mysterious and then cheerful. The music lets you know that you're about to have a good time for the next two hours.
  13. Has any person in the history of mankind had better skin than Ingrid Bergman? Is it possible for a human being to have no pores whatsoever? I guess it is. Holy cripes that woman is gorgeous. I see a lot of noir in the camera work. Tilted, dark, and sinister images abound. Grant's terrific. He's one of my favorite actors. He's even better in 'North by Northwest.' I'm typing in large font because I can. Don't worry about it.

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us