Hairspray (2007)

This remake of Hairspray had the same general idea but went about its filming in a totally different way. I agree with Stephanie Zacharek's review. I feel like the new Hair Spray was too modern and also didn't really do the old Hairspray justive. "John Travolta, looking believably pretty and sweet under layers of fondant Latex, is a wholly different incarnation of Edna. And he's not bad. But that right there is the problem with "Hairspray": It's all so "not bad" that it isn't nearly enough, even when Shankman and his cast work hard to send it soaring over the top. Waters is the least subtle of directors, and the meaning of his movie rang out loud and clear enough to dissolve the ozone layer." The acting in this was excessively cheesy but not in the good, humorous way as the old one was. I found myself actually getting pissed off when they started to sing because it was just too much!

This movie is still set in Baltimore in the early 1960s and of course they still wanted integration to happen, obviously for humanitarian reasons, but also to s"ave white kids from being doomed to eternal squareness." I'm not even sure what that means but it sounds right. I guess in this one the African Americans taught Tracy how to gyrate and then she was able to get onto the show whereas, with the old movie she just naturally had talent and didn't have to be taught anything. 

Zacharek also agrees that the music was unbearable and the the older Hairspray was better - "the songs were relatively free of that lacquered show-tuney quality that makes so much show music unbearable, I still couldn't help feeling that the Waters version, with its shoestring-budget aesthetic, its wear around the edges, its resolute unshininess, was infinitely better." This movie was a little too "safe" and less exhilarating for me compared to the older version. The newer Tracy, played by Nikki Blonsky" was as peppy and had the body for all of that enthusiasm but she just was not as good as Ricki Lake to me. She lacked what I loved in Ricki, that attitude.

They did a lot of different things to the plot of this story such as cancel "Negro Day", Tracy didn't get locked up (but was definitely on the run from the police), Tracy and Link didn't kiss/be together until the end, there was a peaceful march instead of a riot, Little Inez (a black girl) actually won the competition and the Corny Collins Show was officially segrated, it was just anti-climactic for me (although Inez did dance the hell out of that song for a little girl!). Where was the drama that we so loved in the original Hairspray??? And well looka here! Zacharek agrees! - "Shankman's "Hairspray" streamlines the story considerably, doing away completely with some of its nuttier, more memorable elements: There's no ticking-time-bomb beehive here. And when Tracy organizes a desegregation march, Link, instead of simply joining in (as in Waters' original), makes a dud of a speech about having to opt out, lest he lose his big chance to become a star. The writers apparently thought they needed to add some tension to the story, and to the relationship. But in the loopy idealism of Waters' original, this whitest of white kids wouldn't even hesitate to join a desegregation march." I LIKE LOOPY!!!

I'm obviously a fan of the older Hairspray. I'd watch that a million times before I conform to the normality of Shankman's Hairspray again. But I must add, last but not least, that Michelle Pfeifer was damn good in this film.

Hairspray

John Waters' Hairspray is based on the favorite pastime of Baltimore teens in the early 1960's. The New York Times review of this movie criticizes the teenagers with the excessive use of hairspray onto their "teased, empty heads". The film starts off with a montage of the members preparing to shoot on the "Corny Collins Show". This shows the teens in various ways; stuffing bras, making out, spraying massive amounts of hairspray. I must admit that when the movie first started I felt the same way. Some of them took a little too much pleasure in spraying hairspray on their hair. It was like they were superficial and their lives revolved around having perfect hair, going "steady" and also being on television instead of actual school work (which I never saw anyone do). To me this also fed into the stereotype that women should be thin while still being well endowed in those God given areas.

Let me start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie! The directors feelings were quite obvious and I loved that. There were the typical teenagers, all love struck and hormonal and some blonde chick was leading the perfect life until Tracy Turnblad came and took her spotlight and her boyfriend. Skinny women are evil and fat chicks rule. This also shows how dreams come true when you least expect them too and has a message to keep your head up regardless of what people think around you, be yourself.

Tracy Turnbald is definitely not your normal movie heroine. She's a pleasantly plump, white brunette that can dance. What are the odds? But she embodied the "bigger is better" idea and loved herself thus, everyone else began to love her as well. She was bold, outspoken and definitely not one of the racist people in the film. I fell in love with Tracy during this movie and I hope the new Hairspray doesn't tarnish my thoughts of her.

The Corny Collins Show has "Negro day" every last thursday of the month. They are really for segregation but yet they still bring in the special guest who just happens to be a black radio host, Motormouth Maybelle. Hmm...interesting. The host of the show, Corny Collins and a few other members are all for integration but the producers and managers are all against it. Throughout the show you see Tracy and her boyfriend gradually being accepted into the black community and wishing they were black (quite funny btw) and they push for the show to be integrated. I found it really interesting that as Tracy was being held captive the black people were also because imprisoned/taken advantage of in some way. And when she became free and went to claim her throne the black people all walked in with her and thus, the Corny Collins show then became integrated. With Tracy's freedom, the black people became free as well.

"Penny Pingleton is positively, permanently punished" lol. I got to admit that made me chuckle. Penny's mother was obviously the one who need professional help. Her parents were control freaks. The way she freaked out when the colored guy asked her for a dollar was hilarious! But at some point in the movie I really wanted someone to just slap the hell out of her. The racial material at all points were real but I love that the director shed humor on such a big issue. To me it was quite obvious that the director was for integration.

I can't wait to see the remake because I thoroughly enjoyed this movie not knowing what it was about when I first went into it. I'm curious to see if the racial issues stand in the newest Hairspray seeing as how that was clearly the argument of the old movie. But for the record, this movie will NEVER top Grease!

Do The Right Thing - Spike Lee

On a sweltering hot day in a Brooklyn neighborhood, Bedford-Stuyvesant aka "Bed-Stuy", everyone has their own issues to deal with and tensions between Blacks and Italians rise. Issues of pride and prejudice, justice and inequity come to the surface as hate and bigotry brings rise to bring to light the racial conflict in the multi-ethnic community.

"The film was released to protests from many reviewers, and it was openly stated in several newspapers that the film could incite black audiences to riot. No such riots occurred, and Lee criticized white reviewers for implying that black audiences were incapable of restraining themselves while watching a fictional motion picture.

One of many questions at the end of the film is whether Mookie 'does the right thing' when he throws the garbage can through the window, thus inciting the riot that destroys Sal's pizzeria. Critics have seen Mookie's action both as an action that saves Sal's life, by redirecting the crowd's anger away from Sal to his property, and as an "irresponsible encouragement to enact violence". The question is directly raised by the contradictory quotations that end the film, one advocating non-violence, the other advocating violent self-defense in response to oppression.

Spike Lee has remarked that he himself has only ever been asked by white viewers whether Mookie did the right thing; black viewers do not ask the question. Lee believes the key point is that Mookie was angry at the death of Radio Raheem, and that viewers who question the riot's justification are implicitly valuing white property over the life of a black man." - Wikipedia

The movie starts off with a Hispanic girl dancing to Public Enemy's song "Fight The Power" with boxing gloves. This is also the song that Radio Raheem loves to blast on his radio on the loudest possible volume. "Fight the Power" is not about fighting authority, it’s about fighting abuse of power. I felt like this was fitting because the police and white men abused their power in that neighborhood. I also felt like it was ironic that Radio Raheem was murdered by the police officer and he was the one always playing the song.

 "Elvis was a hero to most
But he never meant ---- to me you see
Straight up racist that sucker was
Simple and plain
Mother---- him and John Wayne
Cause I'm Black and I'm proud
I'm ready and hyped plus I'm amped
Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps
Sample a look back you look and find
Nothing but rednecks for 400 years if you check
Don't worry be happy
Was a number one jam"



There were also a lot of references to two civil rights leaders (who both happened to be assassinated in their time); Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) and Malcolm X.  The film ends with two quotations. The first, from MLK argues that violence is never justified under any circumstances. The second, from Malcolm X, argues that violence is not violence, but "intelligence" when it is self-defense. Critics say that it is unclear where Spike Lee stands in respect to these two but I feel as though he is perfectly in the middle. In the movie, he didn't use violence until he felt like he had to. And even then it was only until the end that he actually turned to violence when he threw the garbage can through Sal's window.

This movie also did not hesitate to call out the stereotypes that different races have about each other. They pull absolutely no punches and speaks the truth. It has African Amercans speaking about Italians and vice versa, Hispanics about Asians, etc. It leaves no stone unturned.

All Buggin' Out wanted was for some black faces to be up on the wall. Is that really too much to ask? Blacks were the one who supported his business. In the end, it really didn't have to come to what it came to. Radio Raheem would still be alive, Sal would still own his store, and everyone could be one big happy "family". It shows just how unnecessary violence is because what did they really accomplish? Nothing changed. But overall, this was a really good movie. I would definitely recommend it and watch it again. I can't believe it didn't get any recognition back then because even today it is such a moving movie.

Shaft...again.

Let me start off by saying that I disagree with you Professor! This movie was better than the original Shaft to me. I don't know if its because I'm a biased Samuel L. Jackson fan or because of the fact that it was more recent. I enjoyed this movie because it was hilarious with a lot of witty comments and very colorful characters (People's, pictured on the left, was my favorite). He took care of his people, looked sharp, and was no-nonsense in his white Gucci suits. The movie starter with the same theme song as the original Shaft, and I must admit just because of the montage of sex, guns, sirens, and police cars that I would not like this movie as much as I did. I was wrong of course. I also expected it to be the same plot but to my surprise it was much different. It wasn't so much a remake to me but a reinvention.

"Don't get me wrong: ''Shaft'' is no white-bashing fantasy. It's a mean and lively urban cross fire, with racial cracks ricocheting off each other like popcorn, and shoot-outs staged with such hair-raising finesse that they just about cleanse the air. The movie's neo-blaxploitation politics could be described as righteous indignation lite. Shaft, the black cop, knows that the (white) system is rigged to protect people like Wade, the son of a real estate magnate. And so he sets up an elaborate rattrap to catch him, only to find an extra rat or two inside." I agree with this statement by the EW review because I felt like it corresponded to current day racism, not the old racism. I felt like Wade (the obviously racist murderer) was favored because he was white. The system was corrupt because they set bail at easy amounts for the man to pay. I mean, the price of freedom is priceless but murder, the last time I checked at least, was completely against the law despite your feelings or skin color. Oh! And I absolutely loved it when Shaft threw his shield at the judge and hit the wall. In my opinion, it was a metaphor for nailing the judicial system to the wall but so much more dramatic.

The movie, despite when it was made, challenged a lot for me because Christian Bale was the bad guy, and a good one at that! I'm used to him being Batman and fighting crime not committing it. He was so convincing and devious in his plans that I actually felt scared of him for a while. I thought he would get his butt kicked in prison when that prisoner wanted his shoes (what was he going to do with them in prison anyway?) but I was proven wrong once again when he kicked his ass instead. It looked like he would do anything, murder again too. He had so many people on his side and it always looked like he would get his way. He seemed so powerful until his downfall. Ahhh!!! Sweet, sweet revenge.


Overall I'd have to recommend this movie to those that enjoy a good laugh as well as many gun fights. I don't think anyone could have done this part better than Samuel Jackson. He's so good at being bad ass I don't think anybody will ever be able to top it.

"He's a bad mutha..." "Shut yo mouth!" "But I'm talkin' bout Shaft!"

Who is the man that would risk his neck
For his brother man?
Shaft, can you dig it?

They say this cat Shaft is a bad mother
Shut your mouth
But I'm talkin' 'bout Shaft
Then we can dig it...♫

Growing up my father always made Shaft jokes so this was nothing new to me. My family grew me up watching movies like Foxy Brown and Original Gangstas (covering my eyes at the fresh parts of course) but it was still something that brought us closer together. Despite me know what these movies are I never heard the term "Blaxploitation" before taking this class. Blaxploitation (or "blacksploitation") is a film genre that emerged in the United States circa 1971 when many exploitation films were made specifically (and perhaps exclusively) for an audience of urban black people; the word itself is a portmanteau of the words "black" and "exploitation," and was coined in the early 1970s by Los Angeles NAACP head (and ex-film publicist) Junius Griffin. Blaxploitation films were the first to feature soundtracks of funk and soul music. These films starred primarily black actors." - Wikipedia

A review by Damian Cannon describes Shaft as "A rhythmically exciting Harlem detective story, Shaft pulsates with street-level vernacular and a deep sense of conviction. John Shaft (Richard Roundtree), a black private-eye with run-down corner office, lives up to his reputation as a tough operator. Garnering respect from both cops and hoods, Shaft stands bestride the black-white divide with ease" and I agree. Shaft is one no-nonsense man!

What I noticed was that racial themse are challenged a lot. Shaft is black while the bad guys are mostly white. These movies were made in a time where racism was still around and the roles were actually reversed (or so they seemed). The hose inthe rescuing scene was significant because that was what the policemen used to spray the black men with who would just be chillin" on the corner. They didn't really have to be doing anything wrong but once they congregated that created a problem for some reason.

The camera also did some great effects in this movie during the fight scenes. For example, in the first fight scene in Shaft's office, I felt like I was in the fight too the way the camera spiraled as the guy hit the floor. The fast cut also gave you a feeling as if you were right there cause it was also taken from their point of views. The movie started off with an establishing shot of the city and there was montage editing showing him investigating the kidnapping. Over the shoulder shots when he was talking to Bumpy, and many point of view shots.

The music was also bad ass! It just made you feel like he was the boss and honestly I was dancing to the song. I love that kind of music. The way he walks like he owns the street also makes it more clear the kind of person he is. Cool, calm, and collected...but only when not messed with! If I were cast as Shaft I would probably dance my way into the scene with that music, but he just walks and minds his own business doing his own thing.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind after this movie that Shaft is one bad mutha...yeah, I know. Shut my mouth! But you get the point! I can't wait to watch the latest Shaft because I've never seen it. And everybody knows Samuel L. Jacksonn would be the perfect modern day Shaft! So we'll see! :-)

Faat Kine!

The California Newreel calls Faat Kine the "everyday heroism of African women." "Sembene has said: "Africa's society and economy are held together today by women. But how can women have these responsibilities and yet be denied the same privileges as men?" and I agree that this movie shows how women do so much better than men but still are treated as objects to them. This movie challenges the dominant ideology because the women do the opposite of what they are supposed to do in the African culture. They speak up for themselves, they are loud and independent, the say what they want in and out of the bedroom as well, they are fine being by themselves and having those kind of relationships; which definitely is against the Muslim religion as well.

Faat Kine was a great movie! Although it was not the first African movie I've seen it was definitely the best one. It didn't focus primarily on the negative aspects, but also the positive. To me it seemed like the theme revolved around breaking stereotypes and surpassing peoples' expectations of what you will become in life. For example, Faat Kine refuses to be held down by the stigma of being an unwed mother and she climbs to success and wealth. It also shows the generation difference between the children and the elders which to me signifies progress and independence. A great exampleof colonialism and neo-colonialism.

Throughout the film, it becomes clear that traditional roles between males and females, parents and children, no longer apply. For example, Mammy describes herself as the "daughter" of her daughter, Faat Kine; Djib recalls he always thought of his mother as his sister and he denies that his father has any right to call him his son; Faat Kine's father disowns her for her indiscretion. It shows the contrast between Kine's days and her childrens' days. For example, Kine knows her daughter is no longer a virgin but from the flash backs we can see that her father would not tolerate that under his roof.

The only part I didn't like about this movie was the fact that the subtitles were white and sometimes hard to see. Other than that, this was a very good movie to me. It went against tradition and kept you guessing, apart from the fact that it was really funny. I related to this more than I thought I would because it shows the same familiar message that many people are aware of; progress and preserverance.

Once Upon A Time In The West...Not your typical western!

"Once Upon the Time in the West," which opened yesterday at Loew's State 2 and at Loew's Orpheum, is the biggest, longest, most expensive Leone Western to date, and, in many ways, the most absurd." - The New York Times

This movie challenges the dominant idealogy for most Americans from that time because the inhumane killer in this movie is a white man, whereas, viewers were used to seeing Native Americans as inhumane and cruel, cold blooded killers. The roles in this movie play against the stereotypes that everyone at that time is used to. Another interesting spin is that Henry Fonda was the villain. He was known back then as the guy who always plays the hero, gentleman and righteous man.

Another thing that was dramatically different for me (and I'm sure for the viewers back then too) was that the villain actually got to sleep with the girl (I think her name was Jill). She wanted him (and I'm still confused because he was the one who killed her husband). Whereas, what I'm used to is that the good guy gets the girl. And even in the end, he still left her there without even as much as a hand shake. Why??? Fall in love and live happily ever after! Although she wasn't your typical "damsel in distress" I think Jill's role in this movie was wonderful. She showed a different side of women that most movies don't portay; the real side.

This film was long but really good. It had amazing close up shots, the sound effects and music was great and definitely added to the mood of the scene. For example, when the fly was on the guys mouth all I could hear was that annoying sound that the fly makes and I thought to myself "Just kill the stupid thing already". The music and sound effects got the viewer to feel like they were experiencing the same that and made it that much more relateable. The scenery was also beautiful as like any other western movie.

I enjoyed this movie because it masterfully challenged the typical western, as well as, the normal types of roles these actors played. You never knew what was coming next so it mastered the element of surprise and above all, it was action packed, as well as, humerous. And with these compliments coming from someone who doesn't like westerns, this is a definitely under the "must watch" list!

So...where the heck is Debbie??? "The Searchers"

Now I don't know much about western movies, this was my first one. For most of this movie I was trying to figure out what in the world was going on. Why they hated the Indians, and why the Indians even attacked their home in the first place. This movie to me showed some racism and was very old fashioned, for example, women mainly spoke once the man spoke to them and also, males were the hunters and fighter while women kept the house.

The Searchers, by John Ford, is considered to be a true American classic of Western film making. I agree that the Searchers is a hate-ridden quest of crusaders obsessed with revenge and hatred. Indians are portrayed negatively as blood thirsty animals in this. Despite the violence, there was beautiful scenery that made it realistic. The establishing shots on Monument Valley gave the viewer a really good glance at where they were and allowed us to experience it as if we were really there.

John Wayne plays a typical cowboy from what I've seen and understand about western movies. He's tough, rugged, and a pro at handling a gun. He's always moving, never settling in one place, which could explain why he doesn't have a family of his own. He becomes a hero on his relentless search to find his niece and even then he doesn't stay and settle down with the family. I think this is a way of portraying that he is a loner and does not conform to society's beliefs that everyone should settle down and take care of a family. It shows him as an individual and the camera angle shows us (the viewers) as the normal ones looking out from the inside. Even in the end he is still searching. For what? I guess we'll never know.

Although I'm not a fan of western movies this movie was somewhat enjoyable. It had its humerous parts (Martin by the fire) as well as, the down time in the movie (i.e. when the family was slaughtered). The only thing I didn't really like about the movie was that it portrayed Indians as evil and was slightly racist. They also could've made it a little interesting when they saved Debbie if Martin had fought Scar to save her. That could've built a lot of suspense. I felt like the women were very dramatic and the men were just rough. My favorite part about the movie was the beautiful scenes of the valley. Overall, it was a pretty good movie and if you enjoy westerns you'll most likely enjoy this one.

The Panama Deception

The Panama Deception is a documentary that investigates the case of the 1989 US invasion into Panama. The US was not motivated by the need to protect American soldiers, capture Noriega or restore democracy. It was to force Panama to be under the control of the US. I feel as though the director, Barbara Trent, wanted us to feel exactly what the people were feeling; anger and extreme sadness. Thus, I felt like she tried to push her views onto us. Throughout this movie I felt as though America was the enemy and tricked Panama into letting them in just to gain control, like it was all they wanted. Trent used testimonies of victims, actual footage, as well as, new reports and pictures to show us exactly what happened.

The voice of the narrator also created a sense of authenticity/credibility because it sounded as though the person was confident, stern and firmly believed what they were saying. It goes back into history showing how the US first got into Panama dealing with the Panama Canal and how they infiltrated the Panamanian government using scandals to get Noriega in. Trent portrays the US as this monster that grows angry because they are not getting their way. America is the villain. They use actual footage of Bush's speeches, as well as, footage of the war.

Overall Trent was very convincing in the documentary by trying to show America as the enemy. At the end of the movie I felt really disgusted with the country and also felt as though things could've been handled differently. I felt as though they were lying to the people (I guess hence the deception in the title of the documentary) and Trent evoked those emotions very well.

The New York Times review; The Panama Deception states that the documentary is full of witnesses, for example, official spokesmen, ordinary folk and politicians and I agree with them with they say that this give it a hometown point of view. Trents photos and excerpts on interviews clearly show which side of the argument she is on as this is a one sided documentary. She obviously believes that the invasion was a mistake and the the US was taking advantage of the trust of the people.

Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane was made in 1941. It follows the life of Charlie Foster Kane as a group of reporters try to figure out the last word ever spoke by Charles Foster Kane: "Rosebud". The film begins with a news report of Kane's life and death, as well as, flashbacks from his life.

The movie begins with a choker (close up) shot of a news article announcing Kane's death and also shows a few flashback moment of his life. There is a choker shot of Kane's mouth saying "Rosebud" as he is dying and then focuses on his hand and the snow globe as it drops. As the reporter begins his investigation there also is another choker shot of Kane's house of a "No Trespassing" sign. In this scene there was also extra-diegetic music as they showed different angles of Kane's house. The music gave an eerie feeling to the film at first. The director also used match editing in this scene as the window was in he same place in every angle of the house.

There are also a lot of deep focus shot in this movie. For example in the house when Kane was a boy, his parents are talking in the foreground while we can clearly view him playing outside in the snow in the background. Open frame shots we also used in this scene to make the viewer feel as if they were in the home too.

Throughout the movie there were different camera shots such as medium-two shots, tracking shots, point-of-view shots, medium shots and long shots. There were also many lighting techniques such as key lights, rim lights, and back lights. For example of a fill light, the lighting was placed solely on the book when the reporter was looking for a Rosebud reference.

This film review that I read was called Citizen Kane (1941) and it described the movie as a fresh, sophisticated, and classic masterpiece. I agree with how this review compared the camera techniques to that of Hitchcock with the long shots and deep focus shots. Overall I think the movie was pretty good but it really took too long to answer the question of who/what was Rosebud. But I'd definitely watch it again.

North by Northwest

North by Northwest is a film that was made in 1959 and was directed by Alfred Hitchcock. The main character, Roger Thornhill, was mistaken for a government agent, kidnapped, assaulted, and framed with murder. Let's just say whatever could've gone wrong, did go wrong! I found this movie very interesting to watch despite when it was made. Usually old movies do not appeal to me, but this one had me laughing and on the edge of my seat the whole time. Although it wasn't as advanced or technical as movies today there were definitely many similarities and tricks that are still used.


Some techniques I noticed were establishing shots, over-the-shoulder shots, point of view shots, as well as, cross cutting. An establishing shot is used to provide an overview of the scene to show where the action would take place. For example, while Thornhill was in the car he saw the sign "Townsend" which is where he was interrogated by who he thought was Mr. Lester Townsend only to find on later on that the was not the case. Another establishing shot was toward the end of the film on Mt. Rushmore. This also builds suspense as a master shot because it shows all of the actors' positions as they climb down the rock to escape.


The second technique I noticed was over-the-shoulder shots. An example of this was during the train ride when Thornhill and Eve Kendall were having a conversation. Every time she spoke the camera would switch to her and when Thornhill spoke it would switch to him but you would always see over Kendall's shoulder. Another example of this is when the 180-degree rule is used while Thornhill and Vandamm are having a conversation in the restaurant. As the two men discuss their plans the camera switches between the two where both characters are visible. The 180-degree rule allows each character to remain on the same side of the screen, which minimizes any possible confusion on the part of the audience as cuts occur. (Engaging Cinema, page 44)


Thirdly, the point-of-view shot example can be seen when Thornhill is locked in the room at the Townsend. The camera starts on him looking out the window, switches to see the two men he is looking at, and then switches back to him to see his reaction to what he sees outside. Point-of-view shots show us what the character sees by making the camera's perspective match the character's. (Engaging Cinema, pg 42)


Finally, crosscutting can be seen in most of the movie when Thornhill is running from the police or the men out to get him. The camera would alternate between him running and the pursuit. This can be seen as building suspense because you're wondering if he's going to get caught or not. Another example of this is when Kendall was about to fall on Mt. Rushmore and Thornhill was trying to save her. Cross cutting is when the film cuts back between two different actions. (Engaging Cinema, page 45)


The film review I read was called North by Northwest. It argued that North by Northwest was Hitchcock's most accomplished effort. "It keeps the viewer guessing but also answers questions in a timely fashion." I would definitely have to agree with that. You didn't have to wait forever to guess what the government was up to and that Kaplan didn't really exist.


I enjoyed watching this film because it reminded me of a modern day movie "The Tourist" with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp. I never thought I would enjoy a movie from the 50's but Hitchcock definitely made it worthwhile.