Dial M For Murder 3D Movie Review

It's common knowledge that there was a 3D Boom during the 50s. It's not as common knowledge that Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder was among the movies considered part of that boom. And to be honest, I don't blame people for not knowing that. As a thriller that deals more with the tension between scheming people, it flies in the face of popular Hollywood consensus that you need action to make a good 3D movie, as exemplified in quotes like this one by Carl Mazzocone:

"A lot of producers have exploited 3D unnecessarily to capture that extra little [sur]charge at the box office. Certain movies clearly should not be 3D. ... But, in a horror movie where there's action and you're trying to make it as frightening as possible, and of course you're wielding a three foot chainsaw, you have a situation where you can actually enhance the situation by making a 3D movie."

Now, I probably don't need to say more than "directed by Alfred Hitchcock" for you to know that this is a good film by Hollywood standards (or almost anyone's for that matter). He's one of the directors whose work was used as evidence to form auteur theory, after all. But then how do we account for this gross misstep in use of 3D, as per Hollywood convention? The answer is that Hollywood was wrong and Hitchcock was right. 3D works well (if somewhat unconventionally) in Dial M for Murder.

Before I continue, I should note that this review contains some spoilers. You have been warned.

I've written before about how 3D can be used to draw your attention to certain objects by placing them further in the foreground, thanks to the focus/convergence problem. In the introduction to the film, Hitchcock abuses this power. He uses it to draw your attention away from the people in the scene composition, and toward the plethora of things adorning Tony Wendice's home. It's an odd choice, since those things are not the subject of any of these shots, but mimics Tony's greed addled mindset at the time. Dial M for Murder gains most of its suspense from how unlikely it is for Tony's murder plot to succeed, so by using the 3D composition to throw the audience's attention about, whether it be on his accumulated possessions at the beginning, or the things and people set to unfurl his perfect murder plot as the film progresses, makes the audience absorbed in Tony's hatred (almost feeling he's justified), and then riddled with suspense he feels as the story progresses. It's a perfect and a very creative use of the focus/convergence "problem" that 3D video has, and carries the film well to its intended emotional effect.

The film defies 50's 3D film stereotypes in that it makes most of its use of 3D in positive space (going into the screen) rather than negative space (popping out of the screen). There are 3 exceptions to this rule, two of which carry an impactful emotional effect themselves. The one that doesn't is that all of the titles significantly protruded from the screen.

The second is depicted in the murder scene itself. Tony's wife, the victim, lies down on a desk, her neck constricted by her attacker. The camera is positioned such that her hand protrudes out toward the audience very deeply. To many audiences, the impulse here would be to grab her hand, which is an action akin to attempting to save her. It enhances the disgust the audience members feel with the murder's action. The third is when the police officer presents Tony with a key to his apartment. This key later becomes the means to unravelling his murder plot. Again, as this film is shot from Tony Wendice's point of view, this is insightful and emotionally compelling. At the time, it's obvious his story is being called into question, but the pop out again makes the audience feel compelled to reach out and grab the key. They feel the fear of abandoning logic, while knowing their raw emotion at that point forces them to defy it. Both scenes are beautiful depictions of Tony's conflicting emotions, each of which are lessened in the 2D version of the film.

I can wholeheartedly recommend this film in its 3D version. Hitchcock employs the format masterfully, in ways that greatly improve the film over its 2D release. The 3D Bluray has one scene missing the right frames, so it briefly displays in 2D, but other than that is a fantastic restoration of the original film as well (I wonder, though, why they didn't do a 3D conversion on that scene). If you have access to a 3D TV, and haven't already picked this up, you should definitely add it to your collection. I'm glad I did.

Man of Steel 3D Movie Review

I have a hard time thinking of things to post to this blog. It was originally conceived as a way to collect ideas about 3D film in general that I'd previously been posting to Facebook, which one of my Facebook friends suggested this might be better as a blog. There's only so much I can say about 3D generally though, and that's been starting to show with my utter lack of updates (and when I do update, although honest and not paid posts, sound like they are ads). Recently, though, I had the idea of posting reviews of 3D movies I've watched, but that seemed unnecessary as most of the 3D movies I've seen have been out a while already, and most people should know by now what they think of them. I recently managed to find time to see Man of Steel, however, and that's new enough that I figured I'd try and review how good it was as a 3D movie.

The movie itself doesn't depart dramatically from the normal Superman mythos. The narrative structure actually reminds me a lot of Batman Begins, in that the film constantly jumps back and forth between Superman's youth to provide context for how his origin as an Kryptonian alien shapes the hero he is in this grand battle in which he partakes. Exploring Superman in this light, as a Kryptonian sent to Earth, is an aspect of Superman's character that I've never really seen before. It's an impressive look that I suspect some people will find fascinating, especially those interested in the super hero myths as just that: myths.

They really sell Superman as a mythological, even god-like hero. From his origins on Krypton, where Jor-El is given a visual aesthetic that calls to mind the Roman culture (and the casting Russel Crowe as Jor-El brought to mind images of Maximus from Gladiator as well). Jor-El's confrontation with General Zod feels heavily Roman in style as well, lending a rugged and even god-like military masculinity to all of the Kryptonian interactions (in case the close up on Henry Cavill's abs during heavy lifting didn't do that well enough). Even the cinematography, which abandons panic-driven shaky cameras popular in most modern action scenes in favor of jerky, sweeping movements with each hit, causes this movie to bleed masculinity in ways that impressed me. Still, I never really connected that style with versions of the Superman character in previous iterations I've seen of the character, who always seemed more about a cool head giving him control rather than his raw power.

If I had a really major criticism of the film (other than that I didn't believe Lois Lane and Superman's chemistry for a second), it's that Superman is too out of control of the situations he's in. The film treats Superman's birth as the solution to Kryptonian society's obsessive desire to control the destinies of all Kryptonians. Yet Superman's actions always seem directed by his Kryptonian genesis. He even interprets the "S" on his chest under its Kryptonian meaning rather than the earthly interpretation for which it's colloquially known, and which someone raised on earth would be expected to use. My sister, who watched the film with me, also picked up on the inconsistency, and mockingly mimicked Jor-El saying, "You have the right to be who you want to be, now go do what I tell you!"

But of course, this review wouldn't be on this blog if Man of Steel weren't released in 3D, so with that frame in mind, the question is, "How does the 3D lend itself to this movie?" Unfortunately, it doesn't. While I have no technical qualms with the 3D conversion quality, and some of the individual scenes looked magnificent, the film was obviously shot with the intent that it be viewed in its 2D version, and those decisions made some of the stereo work unsalvageable. Handheld cameras used to make the scenes in Kansas, and other smaller towns in which Clark Kent finds himself, are difficult on the eyes, making this movie somewhat likely than others to induce headaches and nausea. Not only that, but there were constant over-the-shoulder shots that lacked any floating windows to ease the eyestrain caused by window violations. These and other extreme closeups resulted in numerous scenes that lacked any notable depth as well, nor did they exploit convergence tricks to do anything special with the stereo conversion for these extreme closeups directly.

I'm going to be honest here, I didn't like this movie. Most of the movie was admittedly very well done, but not to my tastes at all (I prefer my super heroes to be more human, and this one lays the Kryptonian heritage on too strong for me). It also doesn't help me like it that the 3D in this movie was something I can really point to as an example of what 3D looks like when it actually is a superfluous marketing gimmick. It added less to the film than it detracted from it, so I really suggest, unlike what I did, seeing the 2D version of this movie. It's a good movie, if somewhat niche, but only in 2D.