![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dial M for Murder (1954) (Hoopla)
Starring Grace Kelly as Margot, a wealthy socialite who is married to Tony (played by Ray Milland)--a retired professional tennis player who is now a businessman of sorts. Their marriage seems a happy one that exists in an urbane/cosmopolitan kind of world. Well, that's a lie! It turns out that Margot had a v. intense affair a year ago with Mark (Robert Cummings), an old friend of hers. Mark, who is a television writer, returns to London. He and Margot have not-quite-rekindled their affair. Margot is sure that Tony is in the dark abt everything between her and Mark, but it turns out that she's wrong!
Tony's aware of EVERYTHING that's happened between Margot and Mark. Even worse, he has come up with a plan…
This movie is based on a play from 1952. Actingwise, things are good. There are two actors who I loved in this movie. Ray Milland's Tony is swarmy and weirdly funny. He's hateable due to his ridiculous sense of superiority, but Milland adds a thin layer of charm that does make you wonder if he'll be successful.
Meanwhile, John Williams as Chief Inspector Hubbard is a smart investigator who uses a supposed goofiness to put pressure on the ppl he's investigating. He's a great foil for Tony even though, at first, he seems a little inept.
Do I have any criticisms?
Yup. I have 2
1. The color palettes for the setting and the wardrobe are something else. In the case of the setting, frex, it means creams, dark browns, and some muted greens. IIRC, the only things that stand out are a bright forest green desk blotter pad and a wicker basket that has light blue ribbon.
As for the clothing, hmmm. Everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE) is wearing a combination of white, black, deep navy blue, a variety of grays, beige, and taupe. WHO decided that DRAB was the mood they wanted everyone to convey via their clothing? FTR, Grace Kelly does wear a beautiful, tomato red dress at the beginning of the movie (so try to soak in the color cuz that's abt it.)
Having earth tones for both the apartment (which is the main location for most of the film except for one scene) AND the costuming makes for a dulling of the senses. Thankfully, the cast is talented and the plot's interesting, but gods, what I'd have given for just a smidgen more color in the movie!!
2. Grace Kelly's a superb and beautiful actress whose collabos with Hitchcock have been epically awesome…except this one time, LOL.
I want to point out taht this film was their first (out of three) collaboration. Unlike the other two roles (in Rear Window and To Catch a Thief), Kelly begins the movie in a sassy and playful mood that starts to dim v. quickly. Soon enough, she's barely present. OTOH, it's true that she goes thru a rather traumatic experience. OTOH, I was frustrated by how quickly she gave up on everything for most of the film. I guess I kinda wish she'd pushed back against that which threatened her. (Being as vague as I can for those who haven't watched the movie)
BUT I GOTTA GO TO SPOILER
I get that she'd be in shock to be accused of murder (when she and the viewer knew it was self-defense). But she pretty much shut down almost all the way super fast. I wondered where had her will to live gone
Do I recommend it?
Why not? It's a Hitchcock movie. There are v. few of his movies that I wouldn't recommend. That said, it's not his best, but it's watchable and only goes on for abt an hour and a half. I've had an OK time whenever I've watched it. I'm giving it a 2.6 out of 5.
Queerness level
Nonexistent. :|
Dial M for Murder (1981) (YouTube)
A made-for-TV movie that, aside from the cast AND the fact that it wasn't directed by Hitchcock, lines up pretty closely with the Hitchcock version.
Speaking of the cast, there's Angie Dickinson as Margot. Now, Dickinson is someone who I am vaguely aware of. This was the first time I watched her acting for realsies (and she was pretty good!) Her version of Margot doesn't fold into herself the way Grace Kelly did in the original movie.
The MVP is deffo Christopher Plummer as Tony (Margot's husband.) It's easy to see how much fun he had playing this role. He was FANTASTIC. I even got the sense that, because he was THE big star in the cast, the movie centered him over everyone else. And you know what? I DIDN'T MIND IT!
Funnily enough, given my complaints abt this in the 1954 movie, everyone is wearing different shades of brown and some navy clothing. LOL. Also, the main setting (which was Margot and Tony's swanky apartment) is decorated with a cream and brown palette. The decor reminds me a little of the one seen in the 1980s TV show Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous only not as gaudy or tacky. :P
I also appreciated seeing additional settings aside from the stag dinner thing.
Do I have any criticisms?
I got three. :|
On the milder side, the background music was too on the nose.
On the harsher side, the main thing that drives the emotional stakes of the plot IS Margot/Mark's relationship. The movie (at least in the Hitchcock version) presents it as true love DESPITE the fact that it also is an illicit affair. I mean, even Tony recognizes that. In addition, Grace Kelly and Robert Cummings have TREMENDOUSLY HIGH levels of chemistry.
Whereas Dickinson (as Margot) and Michael Parks (as Max) like each other. However, I didn't see any passion between them, let alone TRUE LURVE. I can even imagine them being totally okay if they end up breaking up post-movie, LOL
The one thing that really annoyed me has to do with the reveal of two specific things within the same scene. This happened so early that it dissipates every ounce of tension that had been building up for most of the movie. Thus, the ending turns anticlimactic AF. #SadTrombone
Do I recommend it?
I do, hahaha! NGL, I'm SHOCKED to say that this movie is actually better than the Hitchcock version? Comparing the two films, the 1981 adaptation feels realer. In the 1954 version, you can SEE ALL OF THE FRAMEWORK. Particularly when it came to the actors' blocking. That movie had a v. stage-y vibe that was nowhere to be found in the 1981 movie.
Another thing was that I felt the pacing was way better here. Once again, Christopher Plummer was delicious, amazing, fantastic, a great actor.
I'm giving it a 2.9 out of 5. Sadly, the three things that frustrated me abt it were enough to keep it from getting a full 3. :(
Finally, I do need to point out that the version I watched (on YT) was nowhere near HD in terms of crispness. I didnt mind, but I'm giving y'all a heads up that this was someone's VHS recording from 1981 most likely, hahaah. Embrace the hyperreal 1980s vibezzz, I guess?
Queerness level
Nonexistent. There are four main characters and none of them are giving queer vibes.
Starring Grace Kelly as Margot, a wealthy socialite who is married to Tony (played by Ray Milland)--a retired professional tennis player who is now a businessman of sorts. Their marriage seems a happy one that exists in an urbane/cosmopolitan kind of world. Well, that's a lie! It turns out that Margot had a v. intense affair a year ago with Mark (Robert Cummings), an old friend of hers. Mark, who is a television writer, returns to London. He and Margot have not-quite-rekindled their affair. Margot is sure that Tony is in the dark abt everything between her and Mark, but it turns out that she's wrong!
Tony's aware of EVERYTHING that's happened between Margot and Mark. Even worse, he has come up with a plan…
This movie is based on a play from 1952. Actingwise, things are good. There are two actors who I loved in this movie. Ray Milland's Tony is swarmy and weirdly funny. He's hateable due to his ridiculous sense of superiority, but Milland adds a thin layer of charm that does make you wonder if he'll be successful.
Meanwhile, John Williams as Chief Inspector Hubbard is a smart investigator who uses a supposed goofiness to put pressure on the ppl he's investigating. He's a great foil for Tony even though, at first, he seems a little inept.
Do I have any criticisms?
Yup. I have 2
1. The color palettes for the setting and the wardrobe are something else. In the case of the setting, frex, it means creams, dark browns, and some muted greens. IIRC, the only things that stand out are a bright forest green desk blotter pad and a wicker basket that has light blue ribbon.
As for the clothing, hmmm. Everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE) is wearing a combination of white, black, deep navy blue, a variety of grays, beige, and taupe. WHO decided that DRAB was the mood they wanted everyone to convey via their clothing? FTR, Grace Kelly does wear a beautiful, tomato red dress at the beginning of the movie (so try to soak in the color cuz that's abt it.)
Having earth tones for both the apartment (which is the main location for most of the film except for one scene) AND the costuming makes for a dulling of the senses. Thankfully, the cast is talented and the plot's interesting, but gods, what I'd have given for just a smidgen more color in the movie!!
2. Grace Kelly's a superb and beautiful actress whose collabos with Hitchcock have been epically awesome…except this one time, LOL.
I want to point out taht this film was their first (out of three) collaboration. Unlike the other two roles (in Rear Window and To Catch a Thief), Kelly begins the movie in a sassy and playful mood that starts to dim v. quickly. Soon enough, she's barely present. OTOH, it's true that she goes thru a rather traumatic experience. OTOH, I was frustrated by how quickly she gave up on everything for most of the film. I guess I kinda wish she'd pushed back against that which threatened her. (Being as vague as I can for those who haven't watched the movie)
BUT I GOTTA GO TO SPOILER
(no, seriously HUGE spoiler)
I get that she'd be in shock to be accused of murder (when she and the viewer knew it was self-defense). But she pretty much shut down almost all the way super fast. I wondered where had her will to live gone
Do I recommend it?
Why not? It's a Hitchcock movie. There are v. few of his movies that I wouldn't recommend. That said, it's not his best, but it's watchable and only goes on for abt an hour and a half. I've had an OK time whenever I've watched it. I'm giving it a 2.6 out of 5.
Queerness level
Nonexistent. :|
Dial M for Murder (1981) (YouTube)
A made-for-TV movie that, aside from the cast AND the fact that it wasn't directed by Hitchcock, lines up pretty closely with the Hitchcock version.
Speaking of the cast, there's Angie Dickinson as Margot. Now, Dickinson is someone who I am vaguely aware of. This was the first time I watched her acting for realsies (and she was pretty good!) Her version of Margot doesn't fold into herself the way Grace Kelly did in the original movie.
The MVP is deffo Christopher Plummer as Tony (Margot's husband.) It's easy to see how much fun he had playing this role. He was FANTASTIC. I even got the sense that, because he was THE big star in the cast, the movie centered him over everyone else. And you know what? I DIDN'T MIND IT!
Funnily enough, given my complaints abt this in the 1954 movie, everyone is wearing different shades of brown and some navy clothing. LOL. Also, the main setting (which was Margot and Tony's swanky apartment) is decorated with a cream and brown palette. The decor reminds me a little of the one seen in the 1980s TV show Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous only not as gaudy or tacky. :P
I also appreciated seeing additional settings aside from the stag dinner thing.
Do I have any criticisms?
I got three. :|
On the milder side, the background music was too on the nose.
On the harsher side, the main thing that drives the emotional stakes of the plot IS Margot/Mark's relationship. The movie (at least in the Hitchcock version) presents it as true love DESPITE the fact that it also is an illicit affair. I mean, even Tony recognizes that. In addition, Grace Kelly and Robert Cummings have TREMENDOUSLY HIGH levels of chemistry.
Whereas Dickinson (as Margot) and Michael Parks (as Max) like each other. However, I didn't see any passion between them, let alone TRUE LURVE. I can even imagine them being totally okay if they end up breaking up post-movie, LOL
The one thing that really annoyed me has to do with the reveal of two specific things within the same scene. This happened so early that it dissipates every ounce of tension that had been building up for most of the movie. Thus, the ending turns anticlimactic AF. #SadTrombone
Do I recommend it?
I do, hahaha! NGL, I'm SHOCKED to say that this movie is actually better than the Hitchcock version? Comparing the two films, the 1981 adaptation feels realer. In the 1954 version, you can SEE ALL OF THE FRAMEWORK. Particularly when it came to the actors' blocking. That movie had a v. stage-y vibe that was nowhere to be found in the 1981 movie.
Another thing was that I felt the pacing was way better here. Once again, Christopher Plummer was delicious, amazing, fantastic, a great actor.
I'm giving it a 2.9 out of 5. Sadly, the three things that frustrated me abt it were enough to keep it from getting a full 3. :(
Finally, I do need to point out that the version I watched (on YT) was nowhere near HD in terms of crispness. I didnt mind, but I'm giving y'all a heads up that this was someone's VHS recording from 1981 most likely, hahaah. Embrace the hyperreal 1980s vibezzz, I guess?
Queerness level
Nonexistent. There are four main characters and none of them are giving queer vibes.
