Oh my. The 70s were brown, man.

I think I’ve seen all the Mel Brooks movies? On VHS in the early 80s. And I don’t really remember this one, except that I think it’s not really one of the better ones? So why did I buy this? Because I kinda sorta want to watch all of his 70s movies again… so why not start with the one I don’t remember?

I mean, there aren’t that many:

Yeah, it’s getting kinda meta.

Heh heh.

Well… Well, OK, it’s a parody of a Hitchcock thriller. But it also kinda tries at being one of these thrillers? So while there are jokes — a lot of them — it’s not like a Zucker/Abramhams/Zucker movie from the same era: It’s kinda subdued.

So while it’s amusing, it’s not exactly hilarious? The jokes aren’t *snap* *snap* *snap*.

Yeah, the movie is just getting flabbier and flabbier. It’s not like the first half was chock-a-block with gags, but now there’s even fewer.

*sigh*

Heh heh, that’s a good one. The joke’s even more relevant today, somehow.

I quite liked the way this movie started, but halfway in, it lost all momentum. And it feels stupid to complain about a movie like this getting “too silly”, but… that’s not it exactly. The writing just felt very lazy: They went with the first joke they thought of and called it a day. It should have been sillier.

Eh:

Pauline Kael of The New Yorker shared the same objection, writing that “Brooks seems to be under the impression that he’s adding a satirical point of view, but it’s a child’s idea of satire; imitation, with a funny hat and a leer. Hitchcock’s suspense melodramas are sparked by his perverse wit; they’re satirical to start with.”

I don’t think that’s it, either. The problem is that there’s long stretches of movie where there isn’t much funny stuff going on.

High Anxiety. Mel Brooks. 1977. ⚂

Yes, it’s another movie from the Hazel Flagg collection.

Oh yeah, I’ve seen this before. I mean, it’d be surprising if I hadn’t, but these scenes seem super familiar, like I’ve seen it a couple years ago? But I don’t think I can have?

Raoul Walsh has the best picture on imdb.

Oh, I had completely forgotten that this movie didn’t just follow Cagney’s gang of killers, but was seen from the point of view of the cops as well.

This 2K Warner Bros disc looks pretty good. They’ve done some sharpening that’s a bit disturbing in some scene, I think?

But I guess no matter who buys Warner, we’re going to see fewer physical releases going forward…

Those car phones don’t look sus at all!

I like the nerdiness of the gadgets and the radios and stuff.

Man, this movie is great. I know; very controversial opinion.

So nerdy.

Man, this movie is great. So exciting, and it looks so great.

White Heat. Raoul Walsh. 1949. ⚅

Man, that’s 70s hair…

Oh, Cybill Shepherd again — she’s a favourite of Hazel Flagg’s. (And I guess Peter Bogdanovich’s.)

I’ve seen so few of the “New Hollywood” movies it’s absurd. I guess this is one of them? But of course, all movies from the 70s seemed vaguely embarassing to me: Everybody looked so 70s to me in the 80s.

Yeah, it’s a problem — everybody looks so 70s, somehow. Perhaps it’s because he looks like he has a joint just out of frame?

Whenever Cybill Shepard isn’t talking, it always looks like she’s just waiting for the other person to finish talking so she can deliver her next line. Which is really appropriate for this character — at least I think so. She’s supposed to be playing a rôle, right?

Hey, it’s… whatsername.

No… that’s not correct, is it? C’mon, ChatGPT.

Oh! Half right! Her character’s name is Mrs. Walker, and it is, once again:

Why can I never remember her name…

Well, they keep mentioning “a fever”, so either Daisy or her… brother? son? is gonna die, I guess?

Ooops possible spoilers for a Henry James story!

The 70s were pre veneers.

It’s so weird what we’ve gotten accustomed to the past decades — like no actors having their own teeth.

This 2K Kino Lorber restoration is nice — it’s been stabilised, and larger blotches have been fixed, but there’s still specks of dusts and grain and stuff. I hate it when movies look over-restored.

Hey, she can play the pianner!

It’s just… the entire movie is about this guy looking at Cybill Shepherd and worrying about her possibly scandalous behaviour (in Rome). But… we’re not really given a reason to care about his worrying? Yes, she’s in danger of having the Patronesses Of Rome Giving Her The Snub Most Direct, but… she’s American; does she care? Should she care? Should we care?

So it’s all about this dork’s feelings, really, and why on Earth should we care about his guy?

GAH!!!

That’s a shocking smash cut.

Anyway… I liked this movie? But the decisions it makes are puzzling. It signals so clearly what’s going to happen, but then focuses to hard on that dork instead of Cybill Shepherd…

It’s a head scratcher.

Right:

Variety described the film as “a dud” and added “Cybill Shepherd is miscast in the title role. Frederic Raphael’s adaptation of the Henry James story doesn’t play. The period production by Peter Bogdanovich is handsome. But his direction and concept seem uncertain and fumbled. Supporting performances by Mildred Natwick, Eileen Brennan and Cloris Leachman are, respectively, excellent, outstanding, and good.”

Reading other reviews, it seems like they found the ending to be surprising? Well, I guess that would make a difference…

But I mean, I really enjoyed this movie. It’s just very odd.

Daisy Miller. Peter Bogdanovich. 1974. ⚄