tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214297712303916286.post8924054468492130986..comments2023-04-16T07:57:04.629-04:00Comments on Screen Savour: The Lodger (1927)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214297712303916286.post-4095981167582135412008-10-02T22:07:00.000-04:002008-10-02T22:07:00.000-04:00@Sam - Thanks, man. I can't wait to run the review...@Sam - Thanks, man. I can't wait to run the review of <I>Blackmail</I> ... of all his pre-1934 works, I enjoy that one the most.<BR/><BR/>@DarkCity - As I do it? Wow, what an undertaking! That'll be a great month of movie watching.<BR/><BR/>@Andrew - It is sad, yeah. I hate to hear about directors who could never make the movies they wanted to. By the way, if you do a Hitchcock month next year, I'll be the first in line to read the reviews.<BR/><BR/>@MovieMan - Yes, I think perhaps I have a rather unconventional view on <I>The Man Who Knew Too Much</I>, both '34 and '56 ... I won't go into it here, but suffice it to say I don't pick favorites between the two. :)T.S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00945932279787919282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214297712303916286.post-24698566643579230752008-10-02T09:33:00.000-04:002008-10-02T09:33:00.000-04:00Interesting that you mention remake of The Man Who...Interesting that you mention remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much favorably. I haven't seen it, but it usually gets criticized as inferior to the original (which I'm not very fond of, save for Peter Lorre's performance). I look forward to your review of that one.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214297712303916286.post-20140243705659332382008-10-01T19:21:00.000-04:002008-10-01T19:21:00.000-04:00It's kind of distressing to hear Hitchcock wanted ...It's kind of distressing to hear Hitchcock wanted to do a remake and couldn't. I've actually never seen the original version, only the forties Merle Oberon starter. The original is, of course, on my watch list... But maybe I'll follow your lead and do a Hitchcock month next year.Andrew Wickliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922403241024122894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214297712303916286.post-2352481249663569322008-10-01T18:41:00.000-04:002008-10-01T18:41:00.000-04:00Hi! T.S.A very nice and detailed review of what is...Hi! T.S.<BR/>A very nice and detailed review of what is considered "Hitch's" "first<BR/>hit" film the 1927 film <B>"The Lodger: The Story of a London Fog."</B> <BR/>Btw, I plan to watch each of <B>AH's</B> film(s) as you review each film this month.(At least, the ones that are part of my AH collection.)<BR/><BR/>Tks,ratatouille's archiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06369967577590947967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214297712303916286.post-34672873104501638722008-10-01T16:09:00.000-04:002008-10-01T16:09:00.000-04:00It is indeed remarkable that Hitchcock "first foun...It is indeed remarkable that Hitchcock "first found his voice" in that magical year of film, one that surely matches 1939 in its cinematic pre-eminence. THE LODGER is Hitch getting his feet wet, and it's not particularly memorable (certainly in no league with his seminal BLACKMAIL among the early output) but still a fair enough intoduction to the most spectacularly prolific career in film history.<BR/><BR/>Congratulations on a fascinating essay, rooted in both teh historical placement of the film and its intrinsic artistic merit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com