White Christmas (1954)

3/5

White Christmas is a whimsical musical from the 50's set after World War II and starring Bing Crosby. That's about all you need to know to get a sense of what it's like. There is nothing inspired or creative about this film. It feels like it was churned out of the Hollywood studio machine--and almost certainly was. The plot follows two soldiers (Crosby, Kaye) who take up a performing career after the war. They meet two singing sisters (Ellen, Clooney) and unexpectedly find themselves performing together at an empty hotel run by their old commanding officer (Jagger). Wanting to do something special for him, they decide to film a live TV special there without letting him know.

The movie is decidedly middle of the road. The acting is flat--somehow deadpan with a smirk, like they know they're being filmed--and the cinematography is bland. The story is straightforward but tepid, although it has a fair number of tear-jerking scenes and laugh-out-loud moments. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll ever find myself truly attached to war movies because I never had to go through anything resembling war. I just don't have a connection to the subject matter and cannot appreciate it as much as someone who does.

I'm not quite sure why it's a Christmas classic, because there are far better movies that fit the bill. I guess this one has singing in it, so I suppose it's got that going for it. The songs are kind of catchy at first, but in retrospect quickly become forgettable and meaningless. (I would argue the same is true about Singin' in the Rain, which I love.) At the end of the day, I'd rather watch Holiday Affair than White Christmas during the next winter season, although neither of them really wowed me. White Christmas gets a solid meh from me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047673/

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

2/5

Creature from the Black Lagoon is about a group of marine scientists in the Amazon who find a fossilized claw and try to dig out the rest of the prehistoric amphibious humanoid creature. During their expedition, they discover that the species did not die out 15 million years ago as they suspected; there is a lone survivor in the lagoon that starts to harass and kill them. It is unclear if the monster is trying to protect his habitat against the intruders, or if it is simply a violent, horny fish-man that enjoys killing men and capturing women. Many people love these classic Universal monster movies, extolling their ability to go against expectations by showing that the monster is capable of love and beauty. Unfortunately, this message was perfected 20 years prior in King Kong and is frankly not that novel or profound anymore.

The acting was expectedly hammy, with equally bland characters to match. The men are manly and fight over the woman, whose only job is to scream when she turns around at the last second and sees the creature approach. The creature is actually pretty spooky, shot in a way that emphasizes the good costuming and makeup. The underwater shots are surprisingly impressive as well. They are as impressive as the above-water shots are unimpressive, which is to say: very. The blaring trumpet that serves as the creature's musical theme/motif, on the other hand, was just repetitive and annoying. Don't bother with this film unless you already know you're the kind who will like it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046876/

Dial M for Murder (1954)

4/5

As with every Hitchcock, this movie is suspenseful and tense from its start to its end. The concept of the plot was clever and its execution nearly flawless. Some of the shots were nicely composed and the camera movement was informative and unobtrusive. The music worked exceptionally well to both enhance the tension and set the mood. Unfortunately, I thought that the plot itself was a bit weak and a bit watery; it meandered and drifted with no real purpose or ending in sight. The conclusion took much too long and it seemed a bit of a stretch. The acting by the American was really over-the-top and quite painful to watch. Grace Kelly, on the other hand, was incredible. Quite a good movie, but Hitchcock has done much much better.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0046912/

Rear Window (1954)

5/5

Jimmy Stewart plays a man in a wheelchair watching the goings-on of his neighbors through his rear window. Each vignette is so rich in character development that they could be the centerpoint of any movie in their own right, but since Hitchcock is a master of suspense, he focuses on the murder mystery. Yet how do you generate suspense when the main character is handicapped, unable to interact with or affect what he sees?

As every critique and analysis points out, Stewart's character represents us, the moviegoing audience, partaking in our voyeuristic delight. So it is particularly shocking when the murder suspect confronts him and asks, "What do you want from me? Your friend, the girl, could have turned me in. Why didn't she? What is it you want?" What do I want in a Hitchcock movie? I want suspense, not airtight logic. That is what Hitchcock knows how to provide and that is exactly what he gives us.

Hitchcock is a master of camera movement and framing. He tells stories by what we see and do not see, but more importantly how we see. His camera sweeps the back courtyard, traveling to and fro, stopping and starting, taking interest in lives and losing that interest, exactly as our eyes would investigate. He never withholds information that we would naturally be curious about; he shows us all we want to see and his characters verbalize what's on our minds right as we're thinking it. The suspense comes from us, always thinking there is a trick he will play on us. And that is Hitchcock's trick: our own doubt.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0047396/

On the Waterfront (1954)

5/5

"I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody. Instead of a bum, which is what I am. It was you, Charlie." These immortal words spoken by Marlon Brando remain in the memory of anyone who has seen this unforgettable film. I think it's hard to realize Brando's screen presence shrinks all supporting actors' performances that they seem laughable, where in any other film they would be lauded. That's not all that's diminished by Brando's strengths. The cinematography is crisp, well-composed, and very often evocative of a mood derived from the angle from which it's shot. Kazan's personal history with the subject matter presented no doubt elicited a more intense involvement with the film, allowing it to surpass most directorial efforts. The symbolism is so obvious when you look for it, but because you are taken in with every word the actors speak, every evolution of the story, you don't realize it until after multiple viewings. And believe me, you'll want to see this movie again.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0047296/