|
Newest Reviews: New Movies - Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter Old Movies - Touki Bouki: The Journey of the Hyena The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry Archives - Recap: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 , 2005, 2006, 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011 , 2012
|
Dial M for Murder (Alfred Hitchcock) 1954
Most notorious because it was filmed in 3-D, I’ve actually seen Hitchcock’s Dial
M for Murder twice before (not counting 1998’s Gwenyth Paltrow / Michael
Douglas starrer, A Perfect Murder, which was a remake of the film) on
television or video without the benefit of its biggest gimmick, so when the
opportunity presented itself to see the film in 3-D in a theater, I took up the
chance, despite not being the film’s biggest fan. Unfortunately, the
razzle-dazzle (which is used mostly to push end tables to the forefront of the
frame so that the theatrical roots of the script are exaggerated) does little to boost what is at best a merely adequate Hitchcock
thriller. The biggest problem with
Dial is that the film’s scope is too small and the level of suspense
too low to thoroughly engage the audience for the film’s running time. There
are essentially four characters in the film, and only one of them is really that
sympathetic. The villain of the piece, Tony Wendice (Ray Milland), seems to be
the one that we spend the greatest amount of our time with, so we end up placed
in a position, like Psycho where we are basically rooting for the bad
guy, since we understand him the most. Unlike Psycho, however, Wendice
isn’t wounded in any way that might make his treachery understandable, nor is
he particularly clever. He’s simply greedy and uninteresting, and
Hitchcock’s typical sadistic desire to manipulate us into rooting for a
villain really backfires here. The other characters
don’t fare much better. I suppose the heroes of the piece are Mrs. Wendice
(Grace Kelly) and her boy toy, Mark (Robert Cummings), but they’re far too
doe-eyed and boring to connect with us. Sure they’re pretty, and we would
prefer that they triumph over Tony, but that’s about as far as it goes. In
fact, one gets the impression that Kelly’s highbred character is slumming when
she flirts with her author friend, which makes their hot and heavy exchanges all
the more laughable. Luckily, Hitchcock seems to understand what a sad lot of
characters these guys are, so after the intermission, he trots out a savior.
Brilliantly played by John Williams, Police Inspector Hubbard deflates much of
the pretentious twaddle that the film had created up to that point. Far smarter
than any of the other characters, his presence is really a breath of fresh air
here. It’s unfortunate that the rest of the film is not similarly opened up
with his arrival. The movie is obviously based on a stage
play, and it essentially takes place in one small apartment. Dial surely
lacks the technical bravado of Hitchcock’s Rope, though, despite the
limited 3-D effects, and the director shows off less than in usual films. As a
result much of the director’s sadism feels closer to the surface, since the
usual Hitchcock excuse for the ghoulish subject matter (it’s entertainment!)
doesn’t seem as applicable here. Worst of all, there’s actually very little
mayhem to be found, since the picture is so darn talky. While the film’s
distilled minimalism is somewhat admirable in a Zen sort of way, I’d take
Hitch’s full-blown set pieces any day over this stuff. * * 1/2 Jeremy Heilman 12-25-01
|