Tag: Mystery

Re-Watch: “Jagged Edge” (1985) starring Jeff Bridges, Glenn Close, Peter Coyote, & Robert Loggia

Emma1 Comment

When a murder case is this shocking, which do you trust… your emotions or the evidence? -Tagline

Jack: You still think I’m guilty? How can you defend me if you think I’m guilty?

Teddy: It happens all the time. It’s the way our legal system works.

San Fran publishing heiress, Page Forrester, is brutally murdered in her luxurious beach house. Her husband, Jack (Jeff Bridges), seems devastated by the crime; he is soon accused of her murder. He hires Teddy Barnes (Glenn Close) to defend him, despite the fact she hasn’t handled a criminal defense case in several years. There’s chemistry between them; the lawyer soon finds herself falling hard for her client.

The movie is about layers and layers and layers of truth. It’s like peeling an onion down to the core. Here we have a very intelligent, very attractive, very warm, very modern mother/career woman who has made a definite commitment to a moral standard, and makes one more moral stand when she says that she will only defend the man who is accused of a terrible crime, if she is convinced of his innocence. The rollercoaster begins. Is he innocent? Is he guilty? Is he lying? Or is he not? It’s a classic high-tension psychological thriller. -Richard Marquand, director (when asked re: the movie during promo)

This movie is the 1st of screenwriter Joe Eszterhas’ San Fran thriller trilogy; the later films are Basic Instinct (1992) and Jade (1995). Eszterhas originally titled the screenplay Hearts of Fire. Columbia disliked the title and decided it had to be changed; they assigned a secretary to go through the script. She came upon “jagged edge” (in description of the murder weapon: “a knife with a jagged edge”). Kevin Costner turned down the role of Jack (thank goodness)! Jane Fonda was originally attached to play Teddy. When she demanded that changes be made to the script, the studio sided w/ Eszterhas and replaced her w/ Close. Fonda and Bridges co-starred in another thriller- The Morning After (1986)- directed by Sydney Lumet.

Who did it? Tom Krasny, the district attorney with political aspirations, is quick to make a case against Forrester. But there is reason to believe that Krasny is as eager to ride this case into a senate seat as he is to convict the right man. Teddy is sharp. She launches her own investigation with the help of a crusty gumshoe named Sam Ransom. She finds what she is looking for: the holes in Krasny’s case and the fact that Forrester is not the only suspect. But she also finds something she wasn’t looking for: emotional and romantic involvement with her client. -Martin Ransohoff, producer

Martin Ransohoff (who went on to produce the movie) took the story idea to Columbia president (Guy McElwaine) in 1983; McElwaine was interested in a courtroom piece (an intense story that’d raise some pressing Qs about the legal system). According to Eszterhas’ book Hollywood Animal, Ransohoff was against the casting of Glenn Close (saying she was “too ugly” for the part). Close heard about this; she said she didn’t want Ransohoff on set during her scenes. The director (Richard Marquand- best known for Star Wars: Episode VI – The Return of the Jedi) supported Close and sent Ransohoff away. The producer was so mad that he went to studio heads trying to get them both fired! The studio later denied this happened (of course). Teddy has 2 young kids (David and Jenny); in their bedroom is a poster of The Return of the Jedi.

This tension between Krasny and Forrester is intense. There is history between them. The courtroom begins to take on the feeling of the O.K. Corral. -Jeff Bridges, actor

This is one of the earliest movies of the erotic thriller genre (and it’s quite effective). Now, there are some problematic elements (esp. when viewed through modern eyes). The acting is quite strong; Robert Loggia received a Best Supporting Oscar nom! Loggia plays Sam Ransom (former investigator in the DA’s office/Teddy’s trusted friend) who curses, drinks (a LOT), and looks rumpled. Teddy and Sam still regret what occurred on one of their past cases. At first, you may wonder if the DA (Teddy’s former boss), Thomas Krasny (Peter Coyote), will be the lead; he’s the focus of the opening 10 mins. To lend to the authenticity, the exteriors of the courtroom were San Fran’s City Hall.

Teddy: Sam! He didn’t do it!

Sam: Yeah? Is that your head talking, or another part of your anatomy? [Teddy gives him a sour look]

Sam: Hey, ok, what the hell, f**k me! [runs for the door]

Today’s viewers may NOT 100% buy into Teddy getting into a relationship w/ Jack; this is crucial for the plot. Teddy is recently divorced; her (nice/bland) ex-hubby doesn’t get much screen time (though the kids want their parents together). She desperately wants to believe that this client is innocent, BUT there are doubts. Here we have the (common) trope of the professional woman who makes a mess of her personal life. She leads w/ her heart, NOT her head. It doesn’t seem like Jack would be ready for romance after the recent tragedy. Jack works his charm on Teddy (w/o her suspecting); he takes her horseback riding, they walk on the beach, and have wine w/ takeout. Jeans, cozy sweaters, business suits- y’all know Bridges looks FAB in all the outfits. Close and Bridges are V well-matched; they create good chemistry together. In the tense/revelatory courtroom scenes, they convey much w/o dialogue.

[1] Bridges and Close show why they’re among the greatest stars of their generation. I can pretty much guarantee that you won’t find this movie boring. 

[2] This courtroom thriller was one of the films that spawned a huge wave of copycats through the mid ’80’s and early ’90’s. […]

…the film works very well on a visceral level, providing twists and shocks along the way (including one startling break-in near the end which is jarring no matter how many times it is seen.) The film’s greatest strength is the acting, notably Close. […] She brings great conviction to her poorly conceived role. Bridges does well also as the perfectly moussed, tan dreamboat who might be a savage murderer. Loggia brings a welcome salty edge to the film with his foul-mouthed portrayal of Close’s investigator friend.

The discordant music by Barry is very unsettling and his use of low piano keys doubtlessly inspired Jerry Goldsmith for “Basic Instinct.” It’s the same type of sound. Folks expecting a watertight story will be disappointed. Those who just want to be entertained and spooked should love it.

[3] The ending was cause for much discussion back in the day, and viewing it now it still feels like a moment of cheek mixed in with some form of clarity, but rest assured it works well, as does, funnily enough, the whole film. No world beater here, but highly accomplished and worth the time of any thriller obsessed movie fan. 

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews

Park Chan-wook’s 1st American Movie: “Stoker” (2013) starring Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, & Matthew Goode

Emma1 Comment

India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) was not prepared to lose her father and best friend, Richard (Dermot Mulroney), in a tragic auto accident. The solitude of her woodsy family estate, the peace of her tranquil town, and the unspoken somberness of her home life are suddenly upended by not only this mysterious accident, but by the sudden arrival of her Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode), who she never knew existed. When Charlie moves in with her and her emotionally unstable mother Evie (Nicole Kidman), India thinks the void left by her father’s death is finally being filled by his closest bloodline. Soon after his arrival, India comes to suspect that this mysterious, charming man has ulterior motives. Yet instead of feeling outrage or horror, this friendless young woman becomes increasingly infatuated with him.

-Synopsis (Fox Searchlight Pictures)

India: You look like my father.

Charles: I am so sorry.

India: It’s your loss, too.

This is probably a film that most of you haven’t heard of before; I learned about it from the Fatal Attractions pod (which focuses on the erotic thriller genre). This is the 1st American movie helmed by South Korean director Park Chan-wook. The screenwriter is also a man of color, Wentworth Miller (best-known as the star of Prison Break); he graduated from Princeton w/ a degree in English Lit. Stoker is inspired by Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt (1943); there is a mysterious uncle who re-emerges into the life of a family after many yrs. of absence. It soon becomes obvious that this man could be dangerous.

India: He [her father] used to say, sometimes you need to do something bad to stop you from doing something worse.

This film (w/ a run time of 1 hr. 39 mins.) is a character-driven thriller which is moody, atmospheric, and tense (though NOT in an obvious way). The pacing may seem slow to some viewers, as it takes some time for the plot to get moving. The main location is an elegant/historic estate in Nashville, TN. Though they play Americans, Wasikowska and Kidman are Aussies and Goode is a Brit. Two of India’s classmates (Alden Ehrenreich and Lucas Till) would go on to their own movies and TV shows in a few yrs.

Mia’s posture: her stillness and her straightness speaks to the personality of a character who likes everything ordered around her. -Park Chan-wook, director

We know that life as a teen can be V tough, esp. when you don’t fit in w/ your family and/or peers. Evie laments the fact that she and India don’t have a close relationship; India was more of a “daddy’s girl” (we see them hunting/bonding in flashback). India is an outcast at her HS; she wears a sullen expression, doesn’t speak much, and dislikes being touched. After school, a few of the boys bully her w/ insults (yikes), though there is one boy who is sympathetic. India plays the piano, as does her Uncle Charlie; this brings them together in a (pivotal) scene. So far, I’ve seen Wasikowska in HBO’s In Treatment, Jane Eyre (2011), and Tracks (2013) co-starring Adam Driver. I think that (like Driver) she has intensity onscreen (even w/o speaking) and plays troubled/sensitive characters V well. If you’re looking for something out of the ordinary, you can rent this movie (Amazon).

[1] The look and feel of Stoker is impressive. The atmosphere is well-sustained throughout. If I had a criticism, it would simply be that the story ultimately isn’t all that original and there aren’t really a lot of surprises. What it does do though is to take a fairly standard psychological thriller story and make it interesting by way of cinematic techniques.

[2] The film has a set of amazing talents. […] The violence is a bit tamed for a Chan-wook Park film, but here, he aims more at the fortitude. He fills them with an impressively energetic style which helps executing its eeriness. The gorgeous cinematography captures the melancholia of their world. Everything is just stunning.

...the film rather tests the anxiety of the audience in these strange haunting exteriors. The film is not trying to be innovative, but the reason why it’s interesting is because of its intense use of filmmaking styles.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews

Reviews of Two Modern Thrillers: “The Voyeurs” (2021) & “Sanctuary” (2022)

Emma1 Comment

The Voyeurs (2021) starring Sydney Sweeney, Justice Smith, Ben Hardy, & Natasha Liu Bordizzo

Pippa {Sydney Sweeney) and Thomas (Justice Smith) move into their dream apt [in Montreal, Quebec]. They notice that their windows look directly into the apt opposite- inviting them to witness the volatile relationship of the attractive couple across the street. But when they attempt to anonymously intercede in their lives, they unwittingly set in motion a chain of events that will lead to disaster.

Have y’all seen any of the Amazon original content? I recently saw one ep of the (V pricy) spy series Citadel; it was mainly mindless action. I have low tolerance for Priyanka Chopra (who was huge in Bollywood some yrs. ago). Richard Madden is wasted; maybe he needs a new agent (as he has been getting stuck in action/superhero roles). As for The Rings of Power, those are hrs. I’ll never get back; even the CGI and action looked unimpressive! However, I had (some) hopes for this erotic thriller after hearing an interview w/ the director (Michael Mohan) on the Fatal Attractions pod.

The setting is urban; the production design is sleek, clean, and modern. All of the actors are young, fit, and attractive; they dress, act, and speak like today. Pippa (an optometrist) and Thomas (a musician who now composes for commercials) have lost the spark in their relationship after a few yrs. together. They joke around a LOT and act more like besties than lovers. You’ll be reminded somewhat of Hitchcock’s Rear Window, as they get TOO interested in their (sexy/dramatic) neighbors- a hunky fashion photographer named Seb (Hardy) and his elegant wife- Julia (Liu Bordizzo). After some time, we see problematic elements in these strangers’ marriage. Spying on them is no longer fun for Thomas (who was the most sympathetic character), though Pippa gets more obsessed (after meeting Julia at her eyeglass store). In the last act, the movie goes off the rails (you can see for yourself)! There are explicit scenes and nudity; this could put off some sensitive viewers. Sadly, the plot drives the story, NOT the characters (who needed to be developed more). The running time (nearly 2 hrs) felt TOO long.

[1] The story gets preposterous at the end, I feel like it had one too many twists, literally just one less at the end and it’ll be fine by me. […]

As a whole, feels like it was stuck in-between two minds, whether to make it an erotica or not.

[2] I liked the overall tone, aesthetics, cast, acting, concept… But the ending was too much. The unreal twists have kind of broken the spell for me. I’d love to see this movie with a simpler more realistic third act.

[3] I really think that the twists and turns that come after were put in as an afterthought when the director realised nobody was going to buy what he had sold up to that point.

He should have just made an erotic thriller. […] The attempts at seriousness or social commentary come to nothing, and in the final act, are totally abandoned.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews

Sanctuary (2022) starring Christopher Abbott & Margaret Qualley

Follows a dominatrix and Hal, her wealthy client, and the disaster that ensues when Hal tries to end their relationship. -Synopsis

This indie film is available for rent on Amazon Prime; I learned about it from TIFF vids on YT. I had high hopes here, BUT it failed to impress me. It’s hard to care about the two characters. We keep wondering IF Hal (Abbott) and Rebecca (Qualley- daughter of Andie McDowell) are just playing a game or if they could be in love. One reviewer commented that it looks like Film School 101. The movie was filmed over 18 days in one location (an elegant hotel room). The dialogue is (sadly) NOT strong and some of the directorial choices didn’t make sense. Hal’s daddy issues are V obvious. If you’ve seen HBO’s comedy Girls, you know that Abbott (who mainly works in theater and indies) is a pretty good actor (who can convey vulnerability). Both actors throw themselves into the story. There is no nudity here (and it lacked heat/sexual chemistry); there are strong words (insults) tossed about that may be offensive to some viewers. The ending was unexpected and ineffective!

I think the movie is about performance in so many ways. There are so many lines in the movie where characters say, “Say the words that I told you to say, the words don’t matter,” or, “I wrote the scenes, all you did was say the words, this is the question that you’re supposed to ask me next, I want you to stick to my script.” It’s funny because when I was developing the script with Micah Bloomberg, there was never any conversation where we were like, “Oh, this is about filmmaking or acting!” That never came up, but in retrospect, gosh, that is all over the story. -Zachary Wigon, director

[1] It’s an up and down ride of domination and submission, game or no game. Freedom or going with the narratives you’re assigned in life.

It’s also a love story of sorts, maybe not the healthiest, but that’s how it goes sometimes in life.

[2] Margaret Qualley is the indisputable show stealer here… […]

However, the film failed to create a similar impression.

And that’s mainly because the writing, the narration, it all felt too obtrusive, too pretentious.

[3] Two good performances by Margaret Qualley and Christopher Abbott weren’t enough to save me from this bloated talkfest that I felt just became more repetitive and unbelievable as it progressed. […]

It’s hard for me to surmise that all this photographed dialogue would be any more effective had the film have been shaped as a play; instead, I think “Sanctuary” would have had more impact as a twenty-minute short rather than increasingly struggling to stay on its feet for a full 96 minutes.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews

“Sliver” (1993) starring Sharon Stone, William Baldwin, & Tom Berenger

EmmaLeave a comment

You like to watch… don’t you. -Tagline for the movie

Hoping for a fresh start after a recent divorce, a 35 y.o. book editor, Carly Norris (Sharon Stone- who was signed for $2.5M), moves into an elegant/high-rise apt. in Manhattan. However, the luxurious “sliver” building comes w/ a history of unsolved murders! Carly catches the eye of middle-aged crime novelist, Jack Landsford (Tom Berenger- in a thankless role), and the 20-ish video-game designer, Zeke Hawkins (William Baldwin). There is a voyeur watching the tenants’ every move using some (then high-tech) equipment. Is this movie really as bad as most people say? Oh yeah, it’s just a mess! The dialogue is cliched, the characters are shallow (or cartoonish), and the plot is basic (and predictable). The screenplay credits go to Ira Levin (who wrote the source novel) and Joe Eszterhas (whose credits incl. Jagged Edge, Basic Instinct, and Showgirls).

Stone alleged in her autobiography that one of the producers, Robert Evans, wanted to see her naked and treated her in a misogynistic manner. Stone (who gets to show some vulnerability in this movie) didn’t want him on set while she was working. As one viewer commented on IMDb: “Stephen Baldwin [one of Alec’s younger bros] is utterly intolerable, why this man was given leading roles in big budget Hollywood films I will never know.” If you thought Madonna was limited in her (vanity project) Body of Evidence, well Baldwin is worse! Johnny Depp, Val Kilmer, and River Phoenix turned down the role of Zeke. The script originally called for full male frontal nudity (which has become less controversial in the past 5 yrs), but Baldwin changed his mind (after the scenes had been shot). Though he does bare his backside in Basic Instinct, Michael Douglas said no to full frontal nudity.

Philip Noyce (an Aussie w/ extensive TV/movie credits) previously directed Dead Calm, Patriot Games, and Clear and Present Danger. A crew was sent to Hawaii to film an active volcano for the opening credits. The volcano erupted and the helicopter carrying the crew crashed- yikes! No one was killed, BUT all film was lost. Eszterhas’ original ending was confusing to test audiences; an alternate ending was quickly written/shot. I don’t think you can blame Noyce much, as doesn’t have much to work w/ here. According to the director, Stone and Baldwin disliked each other so much that they demanded their scenes be filmed separately (when possible). As for the steamy scenes, they’d have been more effective if there was any romantic chemistry. A young Polly Walker (who went on to work on Rome and Bridgerton) plays Carly’s model neighbor. I think modern viewers will be bored, IF they happen to watch this movie!

Hitchcock’s “Foreign Correspondent” (1940) starring Joel McCrea, Laraine Day, Herbert Marshall, & George Sanders

EmmaLeave a comment

The Thrill Spectacle of the Year! -Tagline for the film

Johnny Jones (Joel McCrea) is a crime reporter at a NYC newspaper- The Globe. The editor suddenly appoints him as an European correspondent; he wants a man who’s a clean slate (doesn’t know much re: world affairs). Jones’ 1st assignment is to get the inside story on a secret treaty agreed btwn 2 European countries by a famous Dutch diplomat- Mr. Van Meer (Albert Bassermann). Things don’t go according to plan; Jones enlists an idealistic young woman, Carol Fischer (Laraine Day), help to track down a group of spies. This is Hitchcock’s 2nd American movie; he has a big budget (and it shows in the impressive sets). Rebecca (a huge hit) was also released in 1940. You can watch this movie on Max (new name for HBO Max).

Scott ffolliott: One of my ancestors was beheaded by Henry VIII. His wife dropped the capital letter to commemorate it. There it is.
John Jones: How do you say it, like a stutter?
Scott ffolliott: No, just a straight “fuh.”

To modern eyes, this is a lesser-known Hitchcock film; we find a LOT of his trademarks (which he improved upon later). It’s a BIT long for a classic at 2 hrs; the pacing was slow in some scenes (which is NOT unexpected). It’s an unique blend of comedy and drama; the lighthearted tone in one scene is followed by a more serious (darker) one. The word “Nazi” is never used, BUT we know where the threat is coming from. The 1st choice for the lead was Gary Cooper, BUT he turned it down; he later admitted to Hitchcock that he regretted that decision. Thrillers didn’t have the best reputation at that time. McCrea plays it easy/understated (as he often did in his roles); he has good banter w/ Day. In one action scene, he scales the outside of a hotel in a robe (flashing a LOT of leg). Stephen Fischer (Herbert Marshall) is the most interesting character; he’s clever, witty, charming, yet mysterious. George Sanders gets to play a good guy (which is rare for him); I got a kick out of that. Robert Benchley (also one of the scriptwriters) is V funny as the (experienced) London correspondent who’d rather be drinking.

[1] Though lacking the star power of some of the great director’s more famous movies, the cast is very good, the settings are wonderfully conceived, and the story and writing keep the viewer’s attention at all times. It has everything we hope for from Hitchcock: action, suspense, and a good dose of humor.

[2] …a film which coincidentally carries Hitchcock’s boldest political statement: That neutrality doesn’t work when others are bent on war. […]

Some back in Great Britain complained Hitchcock’s leaving his native country as it faced Hitler all alone was desertion, but Hitchcock was doing all he could for King and Country, as “Foreign Correspondent” pulls all the stops to shake American viewers from their neutrality.

Hitchcock is very careful in presenting the bad guys. He never says they’re Germans, though the implication is obvious. The chief baddie is ruthless but not without decent impulses…

[3] Notice especially the excellence of the exterior set—the sky, the windmills— these visuals are exceptional for a sound stage creation.

-Excerpts from IMDb reviews