Lore (2012, Dir. Clare Shortland, Germany/Australia/UK) (Cert: 15) ***

As the Third Reich crumbles, a family of Germans living out in the wilderness of the Black Forest face uncertainty. When the mother (Ursina Lardi) leaves the children (seemingly to give herself up to the Allied forces taking Germany), the eldest child, Lore (Rosendahl) takes charge and travels with her siblings across Germany towards Hamburg.

Co-produced by the Australian film industry and directed by an Australian filmmaker (as well as being partly funded from the UK) Lore is a distinctly German take on the final days of Nazism. This is far from the first film tackle the subject and there have been better examples of this story (such as Downfall (2004)) but it does approach the subject matter on a more personal level and is focused more on the psyche of a character for whom this world of fascism and anti-Semitism is all she’s ever known. Needless to say it makes for a bleak viewing and the implications and hints towards character motivations are often so subtle they cause moments of a frustrating lack of clarity. This film may hold more significance for German audiences than non-German ones and the film does have an interesting visual side with a dilapidated picture of rural Germany, but, as mentioned before, there are other films on similar subject matter that outclass this.

Don't forget, if you have any suggestions for other films, old or new, for me to review, just post a comment.See More

FILM OF THE WEEK (24/02/2013): Poltergeist (1982, Dir. Tobe Hooper, USA) (Cert: 15) ****

Starring: JoBeth Williams, Craig T. Nelson, Heather O’Rourke

A suburban family find themselves experiencing some strange phenomena in their home, which seems to be caused by some beings in another realm. The activities seem, at first, rather benign. But when they abduct the youngest, Carol-Ann (O’Rourke), things get much more serious.
Although Poltergeist is from the same director who gave us the grisly and intensely disturbing film, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Poltergeist, whilst a horror movie, is far less substantial on the scares and makes for a softer movie. This and the far-greater production values lead many people to believe that the film’s producer Steven Spielberg (who also created the story and partially wrote the screenplay) had a hand in directing. Whether you truly believe this or not, Poltergeist is still a terrifically entertaining film and more of a supernatural mystery. The film’s sense of humour carries it through as well as a great all-round performance from the cast, especially the bizarre yet endearing Zelda Rubenstein as an eccentric medium. 
Any old or new films you want me to review? Just post a comment.

Cloud Atlas (2012, Dirs. Tom Tyker, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Germany/USA/Hong Kong/Singapore) (Cert: 15) ****

Starring: Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Halle Berry

 

Inspecting an American-owned plantation in the South Pacific during the time of the slave trade, a man (Jim Sturgess) falls ill and on his return home, befriends an escaped slave (David Gyasi). An aspiring composer  in the 1930’s (Ben Whishaw) leaves his lover (James D’arcy) behind to arrange works for an aging fellow composer (Broadbent). A journalist (Berry) in the 70’s uncovers the underhanded dealings of an oil company. A contemporary writer (Broadbent, again) gets locked away in a retirement home by his brother (Hugh Grant). In the distant future, a “fabricant” (Doona Bae) escapes her life in captivity. Many generations later, a man (Hanks, again) and woman (Berry, again) search for the mysteries behind civilisation’s mysterious past. All these events are intertwined throughout a huge period of human history.

 

You don’t step into Cloud Atlas lightly. At nearly three hours in length, this is not one story but several joined together in a post-modern narrative, confusion being fended off with the distinctly different settings. As a result, the film is also a meshing of different genres. A historical drama, a romance, a thriller, a comedy and two science-fiction stories (one cyberpunk, the other, post-apocalyptic) all make up this film, or rather, series of short films in which, it jumps between. There are some definite faults in material, mostly physical. Dealing with a wide cast of various ethnicities through various settings, actors are often depicted a different race/nationality to their characters. This is mostly apparent with James D’arcy who, in trying to look East Asian, looks like the titular villain in Dr. No (1962), whilst Tom Hanks (who appears throughout as different characters) provides an Irish accent comparable to Donald Sutherland in The Eagle Has Landed (1976) in terms of awfulness (not to mention another accent, where I’m genuinely not quite sure what Hanks was going for) not to mention Hugh Grant barely attempting to sound American. This is a polarising film and if you dislike high-concept films where you have to exert a lot of concentration and thinking, you’ll despise this film. But for those of us who like a little intellectual meat on the bones, this is well worth a look.

Any new releases or old films you want me to review? Post a comment.

Beautiful Creatures (2013, Dir. Richard LaGravenese, USA) (Cert: 12a) **

Starring: Alden Echenreich, Alice Englert, Jeremy Irons

 

Ethan Wate (Echenreich) lives in the small town of Gatlin, South Carolina; a place where Christian conservatism and conformity reigns. An aspirational intellectual, Ethan dreams of leaving the town and its small-minded citizens, until he meets Lena Duchannes (Englert) a descendent of the town’s founders and herself a non-conformist, made an outcast because she is believed to be a witch. She prefers the term, “Caster”. Ethan and Lena bond, however Lena is nearing her sixteenth birthday at which point she will have her fate of good or evil decided for her, against her will.

 

Beautiful Creatures is, on the one hand something of a successor to the likes of Twilight in bringing to the page, and subsequently the screen, ancient fantasy archetypes in a form more palatable for the tastes of, let’s be honest, mostly adolescent girls. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that and in Beautiful Creatures, we have Lena, who seems more assertive and intellectual than other heroines of her ilk, which is definitely a move in the right direction. Ethan, meanwhile, is also somewhat more sympathetic than the standard male love interest of these kinds of fiction; he reads Kurt Vonnegut, listens to Bob Dylan and watches The Haunting (1963). However, these quirks quickly fall by the wayside and he becomes just a complete blank slate for ‘tweens’ to drool over. I would advise people to brace themselves for Beautiful Creatures, maybe read the book beforehand. Once you start this film, you will fall into a truly bizarre world. Seemingly heavily influenced by Tim Burton, there are also scenes which are extremely odd. One such example of a table that’s rotated at break-neck speed during some super-natural argument. That’s not poor phrasing on my part, the film’s just that nuts. Much of this is because the film doesn’t take the time to explain anything. The screenplay is, for the most part, poor with some inane and, at times, laughably bad and the film really has a one-sided grudge against religion and conservatism that even for those who don’t agree with those ideals will find the tirades and characterisations appallingly harsh. The acting isn’t exactly bad, but not stellar with the two most respected actors in the cast (Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson) both with shaky attempts at Southern accents. This will probably have broad appeal with its target audience and has some interesting visuals, but for those of us who don’t “get” this stuff, it’s a frustrating experience.

FILM OF THE WEEK (17/02/2013): The Big Lebowski (1998, Dir. Joel Coen, USA/UK) (Cert: 18) ****

Starring: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Daniel Huddleston

 

Jeff ‘The Dude’ Lebowski (Bridges) is an unemployed slacker who spends most of his time bowling and hanging out with his friends Walter Sobchak (Goodman), a short-tempered man obsessed with the Vietnam War and Donny (Steve Buscemi) a good-hearted but inane bowler. One evening, The Dude is confronted in his home by two thugs (Philip Moon, Mark Pellegrino) believing The Dude to be a wealthy businessman (Huddleston) also called Jeff Lebowski. The incident causes the two Lebowskis to cross paths, only for The Dude and Walter to wind up involved in resolving the kidnapping of the richer Lebowski’s wife (Tara Reid).

 

A sprawling comic-mystery from the Coen brothers, The Big Lebowski follows on the tradition paved by Miller’s Crossing (1990), Barton Fink (1991) and Fargo (1996), even including most of the same cast (Jeff Bridges would later play Rooster Cogburn in the Coen brothers’ 2010 remake of True Grit). Each of the major characters have their own distinct personality traits and are all enjoyable to watch, from Bridges beach bum philosophising as The Dude to John Turturro’s performance as a Latino bowling rival who steals the few scenes he’s in. The film is more experimental than, say, Fargo (although not quite reaching the surreal heights of Barton Fink) with extensive dream sequences and odd twists but with an engaging story (though not quite as engaging as other Coen fare) and perhaps the funniest Coen brothers screenplay, this is one of the essential films from the fraternal duo.

J. Edgar (2011, Dir. Clint Eastwood, USA) (Cert: 15) ***

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Dame Judi Dench

 

A strident anti-communist, J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) made history as the head of the FBI during the Great Depression, still only at a young age. Under his leadership, the FBI made huge gains in fighting communism and crime in the US during this period; however in his personal life J. Edgar is troubled by his troubled working relationship with whomever was President as well as his possible homosexuality.

 

It’s a difficult thing to make a historical epic centred around one man, played by one actor and if anyone could seem to be able to direct such a film, it would be Clint Eastwood. This isn’t the first time that Eastwood has made films detailing this period of American history and his directorial reputation for delivering strong films, on time and on (if not, under) budget is a great one. However, he doesn’t quite make the cut with J. Edgar. Leonardo DiCaprio is a fine actor who gives a fine performance, but it feels like just that. A performance. You see a man playing J. Edgar Hoover and never feel like you’re seeing the real man. Physically, he invites comparisons (albeit inferior ones) to Orson Welles in Citizen Kane (1941) but he isn’t wholly convincing, nor is Armie Hammer; looking rather odd in his appearances as a much older man. The film does at least look like a Clint Eastwood film and statys true to his style. The story is still somewhat engaging and intriguing whilst the details of Hoover’s personal life such as his possible homosexuality and his rumoured life as a cross-dresser are handled fairly sensitively. J. Edgar isn’t a bad film, but given just a little more skill in the makeup and more accurate casting, it could’ve been greatly improved.

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998, Dir. Richard Donner, USA) (Cert: 15) ***

Starring: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Jet Li

 

On a night out fishing, police officers Martin Riggs (Gibson), Roger Murtaugh (Glover) and their supposed friend, Leo Getz (Joe Pesci) nearly get sunk in a collision with a Chinese tanker. After a fire fight, the cops inspect the tanker and find a group of Chinese illegal immigrants. Sympathising with them, Murtaugh takes them into his home, which antagonises the Chinese organised crime syndicates forcing Murtaugh and Riggs to go on the case once again.

 

Lethal Weapon 4 does prove that by the late 90’s, Mel Gibson and Danny Glover were indeed getting too old for the series. Gibson seems a little too old for the kind of action he’s performing (not to mention having broken out on his own after directing and starring in Braveheart (1996)) and Danny Glover looks increasingly tired (although he’s still a few years younger than his character who should be around sixty and not doing this kind of work!). This is mostly apparent when paired up against main villain, Jet Li. Li fits the villainous mould better than expected, but it’s definitely asking a bit much for Mel Gibson to hold his own in a fight scene against a much younger actor with an actual martial arts reputation. Fortunately, the subject of the characters’ advancing age is woven into the story and the characters still make this enjoyable, even the new additions (Chris Rock, whilst not completely enjoyable, is more palatable than Joe Pesci as the comic relief). The ending is, even by action movie standards, completely devoid of scientific reasoning and it’s good that series  seems to have stopped here, but the film is at least entertaining.

Any films old or new you want me to review? Just post in the Comments.

No (2012, Dir. Pablo Larraín, Chile/France) (Cert: 15) ***

Starring: Gael García Bernal, Alfredo Castro, Antonia Zegers

Under mounting pressure from world governments in the late-80’s, Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet was forced to announce an election on his future as the permanent leader of Chile. Voters who supported Pinochet’s indefinite stay in office would vote, “Si” (“Yes”), whilst those who oppose would vote “No”. With the side opposing Pinochet losing support amongst a highly-negative publicity campaign, René Saavedra (Bernal), an advertising executive and son of an exiled anti-Pinochet activist creates a new No campaign that highlights the positives of Chile without Pinochet with entertainment and humour.

 

Although Pinochet’s time as the militaristic dictator of Chile is well known to those outside of the country, less known was the process with which he was toppled. This is understandable given the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at the time and the more violent revolts that came with them. No is an interesting insight to this overlooked period tackled with a little appropriate humour, whilst also having a keen eye for the facts. Realism is key to this film and is heightened by use of fly-on-the-wall-styled video tape as opposed more traditional and glossier methods such as using a digital format or nitrate film. No is an acquired taste because of these stylistic exercises and is at times a little too understated for its own good, but what is there is entertaining and very informative.

Bonus Review: Paperman (2012, Dir. John Kahrs, USA) ****

Somewhere in the bustling metropolis, a shy office worker meets the girl of his dreams when a gust of wind blows one of his papers into her path. The two separated soon after, the man later spots the woman in an office across the street from his workplace and desperately seeks her attention.

One of a number of short animated films by Disney, primarily to attach to other, larger, projects, Paperman fits in with a reputation for high-quality, good storytelling and quirkiness. As a matter of fact, Paperman is quirkier than most. With a sharp animation style that befits Disney, subtly fusing older and more relatively recent Disney films (the designs bare comparisons with both 101 Dalmatians (1961) and Oliver And Co. (1988)) Paperman’s minimalist animation style means a greater focus on the story, which with the aid of no dialogue, is beautifully heartfelt. The characterisations are a little one-sided (we know much more of the man and his personality than we do the woman) but otherwise, it’s a great short animated film.

Wreck-It Ralph (3D) (2012, Dir. Rich Moore, USA) (Cert: PG) ****

Starring: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer

 

Wreck-It Ralph (Reilly) has been the bad guy in the popular arcade game, Fix-It Felix for thirty years. Day in, day out he has to deal with being thrown off an apartment building, whilst good guy Felix (McBrayer) gets all the credit. Feeling dejected, Ralph goes “Turbo” and leaves his game looking to claim a medal (and thus, be a hero) in another game. After stumbling through first-person-shooter, Hero’s Duty, Ralph finds himself in the sickeningly sweet racing game, Sugar Rush and meets Vannelope Von Schweetz (Silverman) who, as a glitch, is not allowed to join in the races.

 

A mash-up of Toy Story (1995), TRON (1982), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) and Speed Racer (2008), Wreck-It Ralph is an imaginative film which, if mishandled, could have gone spectacularly wrong. However, Disney handles the feel capably and does what Disney does best. An exciting and fun  story for youngsters with enough in-jokes and heart for adults. Fittingly, the film plays with conventions and the actors are often playing against types. This is perhaps most apparent for Sarah Silverman, playing the sweet and precocious Vanellope, given Silverman’s controversial reputation. However, she provides the film’s strongest acting performance. Meanwhile, the villain in the piece is also kept as a surprise as conventionally you would expect Felix (although, Jack McBrayer as a villain would be very strange casting indeed) but this isn’t the case. The film is wonderfully animated with the cartoon-styled animation meshing well with the high-tech backdrop (unlike the aforementioned, Speed Racer). It would’ve been nice if we could’ve seen more arcade game-based worlds or characters or perhaps more radical shifts in animation styles, but the story and the animation (though the 3D is almost negligible) make it worthwhile.

Lethal Weapon 3 (Director’s Cut) (1992/1997, Dir. Richard Donner, USA) (Cert: 15) ***

 

Starring: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Rene Russo

 

Roger Murtaugh (Glover) is nearing the impending day of retirement from the police force and spends that time between high-risk adventures with his partner, Martin Riggs (Gibson) and low-key duties as a street officer. However, the tranquillity is shattered when an apprehended criminal (Mark Pellegrino) is shot dead by his employer (Stuart Wilson), an ex-cop with a dangerous agenda.

 

The third film in the Lethal Weapon series, by the time of Lethal Weapon 3, the formula has begun to run a little thin. The jokes come across as a little forced and the story isn’t very engaging. Meanwhile, Stuart Wilson’s villain of Jack Traviss disappears for a large part of the film’s runtime, killing any chance of the audience really getting invested in him getting his comeuppance. However, Lethal Weapon 3 isn’t a total dud. That chemistry between Gibson and Glover in the first two films is still present and the relationship between Gibson and Russo is actually the most engaging romance in the series to this point. Also, the action sequences are, as always, a sight to behold. If the first two films don’t grab you, this certainly won’t. However, fans shouldn’t find much to object to, either.

LETHAL WEAPON RETROSPECTIVE PART 2 - LETHAL WEAPON 2 (1989).

One of those rare sequels that is an improvement on what came before, Lethal Weapon 2 is perhaps the first film of the series to pop into people's heads when the series is mentioned (or at the very least the South African villains). The film does have some problems, primarily that in a film which references the racial inequalities of Apartheid, all of the white South Africans (with one lone exception) are themselves portrayed as universally racist. In addition, the film is built on a very flimsy premise and Joe Pesci plays the annoying sidekick a little too well. But whilst the film has its flaws, it excels when it goes right.

REVIEW: A LIAR'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY

For a brief while, Monty Python's Graham Chapman rises from the grave to tell his (somewhat dubious) lifestory. Featuring five of the six Pythons (oddly enough it's the very much still alive Eric Idle that is missing, not Chapman) the film bounces between animation and between quality, though the film doesn't go far beyond being mildly entertaining. Appropriately silly, this tale of fame, alcoholism and homosexuality is a little naughty as is the trailer, so be warned.

FILM OF THE WEEK (10/02/2013): ALIEN (1979).

Ridley Scott's second feature film and his international breakthrough, Alien is a tense and claustrophobic melding of horror and sci-fi with some outstanding visuals.

Owing a strong debt in design to Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) (from which it also takes one major character point), some people hold this as good but inferior to James Cameron's sequel, Aliens (1986) which I have never understood or agreed with. It takes its time to get going, but the whole experience is quite remarakable. Bonus for Lord Of The Rings fans as we have a ship which contains both Aragorn (from the lesser-known Ralph Bakshi adaptation) and Bilbo (from the better-known Peter Jackson adaptation).

LETHAL WEAPON RETROSPECTIVE - PART 1: LETHAL WEAPON (1987)

Classic Joel Silver-produced 80s action flick which helped forge what the action film of the future would look like, alongside Die Hard a year later, another Joel Silver film with many of the same ideas. The plot takes a while to get going but the writing's snappy, the action scenes well shot and there's some definite chemistry between cop leads, Danny Glover and Mel Gibson in his US breakthrough (you can still hear his Aussie accent in places). Not perfect, but still entertaining.

Any film at all (old or new) you want me to review? Just post a comment.

REVIEW: HITCHCOCK

Sir Anthony Hopkins stars as Alfred Hitchcock in this feature about the making of Hitchcock's hugely influential picture, Psycho (1960). Hopkins manages to inhabit some great little details of the late master of suspense in a largely satisfactory role (Dame Helen Mirren, his co-star is, however, brilliant). Hopkins doesn't exactly look the part (compare to the near flawless resemblalence between Scarlett Johansson and Janet Leigh or James D'Arcy and Anthony Perkins). Dramatically, it manages to hold itself together but with a story that's rather undertold.

REVIEW: FLIGHT

Robert Zemeckis' return to full-fledged live action is well-written and well-acted but lacks a little of the necessary punch. This is a different animal to Zemeckis more popular works, veering away from the family-friendly Back To The Future trilogy (1985 - 90), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) and Forrest Gump (1994) and he rises ably to the challenge, producing an entertaining film, but it seems a little underwhelming given the talk of Oscars.

FILM OF THE WEEK: Nosferatu: Phantom Der Nacht (Nosferatu The Vampyre) (1979)

A remake of F.W Murnau's Nosferatu (1922) (itself an adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula) by another great director of German cinema, Werner Herzog. On the one hand, Phantom Der Nacht remains true to Murnau's vision.

Heavily impressionistic and the very distinctive design of the villainous vampire. On the other, the film not only brings sound and colour but it's closer to the original Dracula story (in that the characters are actually given the same names as their literary counterparts) with Klaus Kinski (with aid from Herzog's screenplay) providing a more tragic, even almost sympathetic, portrayal of Dracula. Add in tons of atmosphere and eerie beauty (best demonstrated by Harker's trek towards Castle Dracula, or Lucy wandering through a town-square filled by plague-maddened townspeople) this is to my mind, the greatest vampire film ever made.

LINCOLN REVIEW

Spielberg's latest film is a stirring tale of a crusade to end injustice. Those looking for a war film about the Civil War need look elsewhere as this film teaches more about the politics. It is a history lesson, but history lessons can be worthwhile and enjoyable. The film often isn't the visual tour-de-force one might expect from Spielberg (nor his longtime cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski) and the film's ending 20 minutes are unnecesary, but whilst this isn't Spielberg's best, it works well. Any suggestions for movies (old or new) to review? Just comment below.

To Love A Ghost (55 Years Of Vertigo)

 

 

After decades as top dog on critics’ lists, Citizen Kane (1941) was knocked off of the Greatest Film Of All Time spot on Sight & Sound recently, replaced by Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo. With the media currently going through a love affair with Hitch (such as the made for TV drama, The Girl (2012) and the upcoming film simply known as Hitchcock (2013)) let’s take a look at what may be the masterpiece of one cinema’s greatest creators.

 

Despite the modern acclaim, Vertigo was not as beloved when it was first released in 1958. It wasn’t hated, nor was it a financial disaster; but given Hitchcock’s already monumental reputation it didn’t exactly set the world on fire. This isn’t unheard of films which go on to acquire a great reputation. The aforementioned Citizen Kane also arrived to muted applause (often blamed on media tycoon William Randolph Hearst who, believing the often unsympathetic main character, Charles Foster Kane, was based on him ordered the film critics that worked in his newspapers to give the film bad reviews). It wasn’t until critics began revisiting Vertigo in the 1960s and its subsequent showing on television and releases on VHS in the 70s and 80s that the film developed its reputation.

 

Vertigo stars Jimmy Stewart as John “Scottie” Ferguson; a San Francisco cop who retires from the force when his partner (Fred Graham) falls from a rooftop trying to save Scotty from falling himself. The incident leaves Scotty with a fear of heights and attacks of vertigo (this film is probably responsible for having many people falsely believing that vertigo is a fear of heights). Now a private detective, Scotty is asked by an old friend (Tom Helmore) to spy on his wife (Kim Novak) who seems obsessed, even entranced, by a woman believed to be long dead.

 

The reason why Vertigo didn’t make a big splash in 1958 is often laid at the belief that critics and audiences found the film too complex and complicated. This might also be something of an asset to the film. As great as the works of Hitchcock usually are, they aren’t known for complex stories. Many of his classics are about a man becoming either a target for a group of killers, a man falsely accused of committing a crime (a theme that is claimed to be rooted in Hitchcock being locked in a police cell as a boy as punishment, even though it always eluded Hitchcock what his actual transgression was), sometimes both themes were part of a film’s plot. Vertigo is a much more complex piece thematically. It’s a dark tale of obsession and possessiveness. This is perfectly encapsulated by Hitchcock regular, Jimmy Stewart in his last role in an Alfred Hitchcock film. The perennial Mr Nice Guy and everyman of both Hitchcock and Frank Capra films transforms over the course of the film to a man totally absorbed by his past personal demons. There’s also no exact moment that can be clearly defined where the transition starts or stops. It is a truly engrossing performance.

 

Scottie could be almost considered an avatar of Hitchcock himself. Hitch has often been characterised as a man with obsessive control over his leading ladies and having a particular fondness for icy blonde bombshells, a category of which Kim Novak belongs in with other Hitchcock luminaries Grace Kelly, Tippi Hedren, Janet Leigh and Vera Miles (Miles, who later appeared in Psycho (1960), was in fact an earlier choice to play Kim Novak’s Madeline in this film). Stewart’s later scenes with Novak particularly reflect this idea.

 

On a technical level, the film easily ranks amongst the director’s best work. A cavalcade of expressionistic light and colour, the sets perfectly represent the ideas present in the film. The lurid reds of passion and the shocking use of green provide remarkable heightening of drama whilst Bernard Hermann provides a typically experimental score, topped with perhaps some of Hitchcock’s most bizarre set-pieces. The bending images of Scotty’s vertigo attacks and a surrealistic tinted dream sequence. The fact that two years later, Hitchcock released the starkly monochrome and minimalist Psycho, holds a particularly sharp contrast.     

 

Is Vertigo truly the best film ever made?  Well, as a piece of art its real quality is subjective. Personally, it isn’t my favourite film of Hitchcock’s (that’s probably The Birds (1963), although Vertigo still belongs in a top tier alongside Psycho, The 39 Steps (1935) and Rope (1948)) but, regardless, Vertigo is as complex, developed and experimental as Hitch ever got.