there's a constantly gorgeous surface - a handsome hero, lots of bright Technicolor - and a constant moral rot at play underneath
Having actually seen this film, I wonder if some of the critics hailing it as a masterpiece actually have seen it. The chief reason critics are now piling on is because of the thoughts behind the film--that film is voyeuristic, etc. However, the acting is poor, the "thrills" are almost nonexistent and hokey, and the film just is more laughable than scary. A film has to work on all levels. Just as critics in 1960 savaged the film for stupid reasons in many cases, critics today celebrate it, going in the opposite direction, because of this ongoing 'auteur' fad.
Jul 1 - 09:46 AM