Marnie
|
List Price: Our Price: $12.69 You Save: $7.29 (36%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $9.73 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Marnie
Movie Review: "The idea was to kill myself, not feed the damn fish"
Summary: 4 Stars
Oh, Marnie, such a wonderful film. Tippi Hedren is wonderful and dynamic as the lead in this film, with a very capable and convincing support crew of Diane Baker and Sean Connery--all this with Alfred Hitchcock directing.
I have always enjoyed this film of lying, thieving, psychological childhood trauma, frigidity, and suspense. In fact, I cannot understand why some people dislike this film. Furthermore, I do not understand why this is not considered one of his greatest films (although there are so many greats it is easy to see how some films get lost in the shuffle).
The story is about a troubled woman, who we meet right after an inside heist job. From there, we meet her disgruntled mother and learn that their relationship might have a lot to do with Marnie's antisocial and criminal behavior. The story really takes off when she is hired for another job and meets the handsome and wealthy Mark Rutland. He notices her instantly and begins to take considerable interest in her. This and his expertise in female animal abnormal behavior makes for an interesting continuation.
I highly recommend this film, although I could see how the psychoanalysis driven ending could turn some folks off.
Movie Review: SOLID HITCHCOCK, BUT NOT HIS BEST!
Summary: 4 Stars
I am finally getting back to my Hitchcock box set and I decided to check out 'Marnie'. This film is really quite good with plenty of Hitch's signature camera work and attention to detail. I found myself engrossed in the story of the girl with a lot of issues, even if it's a bit too long and some small scenes seemed over done. It's still a fine film non the less and the DVD transfer looks nice and crisp,....I noticed some blurs here and there, but that could be from the original source. The DVD on the box set which I viewed this from has some very good extras including an hour long documentary and production stills, trailers etc. Look for the box set with 14 films including this one as it has come down to a really good price.Movie Review: Marnie has issues.
Summary: 4 Stars
Marnie starring Tippi Hedren and Sean Connery is a deeply disturbing drama directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Hedren is completely captivating in the title-role, she is so much more effective in this film than The Birds. I won't give away the ending but expect a creepy and complexed climax. This movie isn't considered a Hitchcock classic but it's definitely worth a viewing, enjoy!Movie Review: This movie is not The Birds, or "for the birds."
Summary: 3 Stars
This is not a typical Hitchcock movie, if that is what you're after, though it has some Hitchcock cinematic and dramatic touches. Ultimately, this is a fairly earnest film about psychological healing, from an early 1960s perspective. While I wouldn't recommend marriage to someone acting as a therapist as an effective method of helping people who are psychologically scarred, it is well to keep in mind that this is just a Hitchcockian plot element in the story, and is not meant to be taken seriously.
I beg to differ with some comments made by the Amazon reviewer, David Chute:
"His patient program of investigation and surveillance has a creepy, voyeuristic quality that's pure Hitchcock, but all's lost when it emerges that the root of Marnie's problem is phobic sexual frigidity, induced by a childhood trauma. Luckily, Sean is up to the challenge. As it were. Not even D.H. Lawrence believed as fervently as Hitchcock in the curative properties of sexual release."
Yes, the husband does hire a private investigator in order to obtain more information about Marnie's mysterious past. But he does this to help her and there is nothing creepy or voyeuristic about it. I think Mr. Chute is confusing this movie with other Hitchcock films that ARE creepy and voyeuristic. But as I said, this is not a typical Hitchcock film.
It NEVER "emerges" that the "root" of Marnie's problem is phobic sexual frigidity. Yes, fear and revulsion of sexual intimacy is one of the MANY symptoms of Marnie's "problem" (along with other symptoms such as cheating, lying, stealing, self-isolation, nightmares, fear of the color red, fear of thunder and lightning, obsessive desire for her mother's approval), but it is never singled out as the root. Mr. Chute seems partly to understand this, as he writes "induced by a childhood trauma." So why does he say "all is lost" because of this one sexual symptom? Are all the people who suffer from sexual symptoms due to psychological trauma a subject of humor and derision? Or does Mr. Chute think that this movie is making a joke of it?
Then Mr. Chute has to make a cheap, snarky joke about Sean Connery being "up to the challenge, as it were." Yes, we get the joke, Mr. Chute. How clever of you. Never in this movie does Sean Connery attempt to "cure" Marnie with sex. In fact, he makes a point of not trying to do exactly that, because he understands it will do harm. There is one point that he slips, but it is seen as a serious mistake. Likewise, if Mr. Chute thinks this movie is about "the curative properties of sexual release," all I can say is that he must have watched a different movie. There is nothing like that, which, to be honest, surprised me, because, after all, this is a Hitchcock movie from the early 60s and it does have Sean Connery. For once, Sean Connery does not play the hopelessly inveterate playboy that we've all come to know and love (or hate). :-)
I'm not trying to pick on Mr. Chute. But I've seen the same kinds of criticisms from other people, and it's easier to respond to them all in this way.
So, you may ask, if I work so hard to defend this movie, why do I give it only 3 stars? In my rating system, a 5-star movie is something that I might want to buy and keep. A 4-star movie is something that I wouldn't mind watching more than once, but subsequent viewings would be for "free," such as a library video or as a rerun on a TV movie channel. A 3-star movie is something that I enjoyed watching once, but probably wouldn't want to watch it again. Which means that if you haven't already seen Marnie, you, too, might enjoy watching it at least one time! There are a few genuinely touching moments in the story. :-)
Movie Review: Solid
Summary: 3 Stars
After his back to back commercial and critical triumphs of Psycho and The Birds, Alfred Hitchcock decided to go `interior.' By that, I mean he decided to get unfortunately Freudian in his approach to crime, as he had throughout his career. Unfortunately, all but a few of his films suffer from their reliance on the outmoded and simplistic approaches to psychology that he employed. One of them was Marnie, his 1964 color follow up to the two terrific films mentioned at the start, starring his The Birds female lead, Tippi Hedren.
While the film flopped at the box office, latter day critics have tried to overcompensate for this fact by declaring the film a masterpiece. It's not, but it is a good, solid film that is better than originally thought. Its first hour is a nearly flawless study of a female thief, Marnie Edgar (Hedren)- aka Margaret Edgar, Peggy Nicholson, and Mary Taylor, who is sort of what the Janet Leigh character in Psycho may have become had she not been killed so early in that film. Her development is evenly paced and believable, never forced nor rushed. Then, when Marnie is caught by her boss, a widower named Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), and blackmailed into marriage, the film goes downhill, as Marnie's freakouts over the color red, highlighted by Hitchcock's over the top usage of red fade-ins and interludes (compare them with Ingmar Bergman's similar later technique in Cries And Whispers), lead to even greater and sillier melodrama.... All in all, Marnie is a flawed, but worthwhile, entry in the Hitchcock canon, and better than some more highly regarded earlier films. That said, it's a transition film which led the way to Hitchcock's final film of merit, 1972's Frenzy, and embodies all the best of Hitchcock, as well as his worst. In that sense, one could argue it is the Master Of Suspense's most Hitchcockian film, even if it is not too heavy on the suspense. In a more real world sense, it is a film that could have been great, yet also shows why Hitchcock was a flawed artist; thus a film that should be studied by students of the craft; a not too bad way to fail, after all.