Hyde Park on Hudson & Hitchcock
On days when I am doing a double feature, I try to find the
best coupling of times among the movies I want to see. I try to make sure there
is as little layover time as possible so I am not too tempted by the buttery
popcorn and Reese’s Pieces. This particular pairing turned out to be intriguing
in their generational parallels and warmly welcome in stylistic differences.
Hyde Park on Hudson felt like an after-school special attempting to be naughty.
The meandering script shied away from the more scandalous affairs surrounding
President Roosevelt and his mistresses to focus on the ensuing comedy of manners instead. Bill Murray (in a Golden Globe nominated performance) and Laura Linney safely portray FDR and his cousin which
further hinders Richard Nelson’s blandly written characters. However, this fares
well for Samuel West and Olivia Coleman (King George VI and Queen Elizabeth)
for they give the film the bit of buoyancy present. After seeing the film, I
was left thinking that maybe it was meant for a different generation. Perhaps,
older audiences craved a simple, neutered retelling of an important and mostly
uneventful weekend that changed the course of history.
Hyde Park on Hudson felt like an after-school special attempting to be naughty.
The meandering script shied away from the more scandalous affairs surrounding
President Roosevelt and his mistresses to focus on the ensuing comedy of manners instead. Bill Murray (in a Golden Globe nominated performance) and Laura Linney safely portray FDR and his cousin which
further hinders Richard Nelson’s blandly written characters. However, this fares
well for Samuel West and Olivia Coleman (King George VI and Queen Elizabeth)
for they give the film the bit of buoyancy present. After seeing the film, I
was left thinking that maybe it was meant for a different generation. Perhaps,
older audiences craved a simple, neutered retelling of an important and mostly
uneventful weekend that changed the course of history.
I entered Hitchcock expecting a similar biopic treatment meant for a different generation. I was thankfully mistaken. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren not only infused the titular character and his wife, Alma, with destructive carnal desire, but also accompanied it with earnest longing and passionate jealousy. Hopkins’ wonderful physical transformation is nicely matched with his behavioral changes. His unflinching facial austerity serves for the comedic moments and he wisely selects when to soften his expression for emotional impact. Mirren earned Golden Globe and SAG nominations by boldly embodying a headstrong woman with sexuality, unfaltering wit, and accenting her with loving patience, and loyalty. She makes her Alfred’s equal in intellect and determination – just as it should be – and by doing so anchors the film. Scarlett Johansson nails Janet Leigh’s onscreen performances but struggles a bit in the casual encounters. The script wisely focuses on Hitchcock and Alma’s marital struggles in the midst of their perilous professional time, but feels uneven in tone and intent. Yet, for a film targeted to a different generation, Hitchcock infused life, energy, and humor into an American icon, which Hyde Park on Hudson completely failed to do. HYDE PARK ON HUDSON 2.5/5 Stars. HITCHCOCK 3.5/5 Stars.
The Deep Blue Sea
After hearing of Rachel Weisz’s Golden Globe Nomination for The Deep Blue Sea, I was pleased to find it available instantly on Netflix.
While her performance is an interesting mix of strength and frailty, the film’s
style and pacing does not allow her to feel fully engrossed. There are strong
supporting performances as well, but the film overall falls flat under Terence
Davies’ direction of his own scattered adaptation. The costume design,
original music, and overall production design greatly excels the final product.
2/5 Stars
Anybody else seeing any of these three films? What did you think??
Anybody else seeing any of these three films? What did you think??
