alangalpert

"Psycho" is unquestionably one of the finest films of all time, and probably the greatest thriller (although there are several other contenders, all directed by Hitchcock). The acting is first-rate; the cinematography is superb; and the musical score (by Bernard Herrmann) is iconic. (Incredibly, the score did not receive an Oscar nomination.) Hitchcock has been deservedly praised for his direction, but I feel it is time to give credit where credit is due. I recently read the book on which the movie was based, also titled "Psycho". It was written by Robert Bloch in 1959, a year before the movie was made. Except for two scenes that weren't in the book, and a couple of memorable lines (most notably, "Well, a boy's best friend is his mother"), the movie follows the book so closely that almost all of the credit should go to the author of the book, not the director of the movie. If you have seen and enjoyed the movie, pick up a copy of the book. Only then can you appreciate who the real genius was behind "Psycho".

There are quite a few, mostly minor, differences between the book and movie. As I read the book, I wondered why the changes had been made. Here are some examples. In the movie, Ms. Crane's name is Marion; in the book, it is Mary. In the movie, she lives and works in Phoenix, Arizona; in the book, she is from Ft. Worth, Texas. In the movie, Norman Bates is thin and young; in the book, he is fat and middle-aged. In the book, he wears glasses; in the movie, he doesn't. In the movie, there are twelve cabins at the motel; in the book, there are six. I found no fewer than thirty-five differences, but almost none of them made any sense to me.

Despite being inspired by (you could even say 'ripped off from') "Rear Window", and having a lot in common with a number of other erotic thrillers, I found "Blind Vision" to be suspenseful, well-acted, and even clever. Unlike "Rear Window", the photographer in this case is truly a voyeur, and he isn't recovering from an injury. Nor does he witness a crime, as such, but he does observe abusive behavior which precedes a crime. We are left guessing as to whether the abuse and the crime are related. It is even possible that the photographer himself was involved, which could not have happened in "Rear Window".

"Blind Vision" is not quite the nail-biter that "Rear Window" is, but it is more complex than its famous predecessor and, in my opinion, more intriguing. There is an original plot twist that elevates the film above the standard fare in this genre. But it is subtle, and you have to think about it. (I do not refer to the ending, which is also surprising.)

There is an even stronger resemblance to a Brian de Palma film called "Body Double", which was made six years earlier, and also stars Deborah Shelton. If you liked that film, you will probably like "Blind Vision". I think "BV" is slightly inferior, but it is better than the low rating leads one to expect.

On one level, "Forces of Nature" falls squarely in what I will call the "Murphy's Law tradition" of cinema. In other words, whatever can go wrong, does go wrong. This tradition includes the likes of "The Out-of-Towners" and "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles". In these movies - usually comedies - the principal characters are bedeviled by a series of obstacles which threaten to derail their plans; the obstacles range from human malfeasance to natural disasters. As the title strongly suggests, the primary obstacles in this movie are courtesy of Mother Nature. The probability of just one of the unfortunate events is extremely low. The probability of all of them occurring within the space of two days is nonexistent. (The antecedents of this tradition predate cinema by several thousand years, of course. Remember the trials of Job, and the plagues of the Old Testament. Indeed, at one point Ben says something about waiting for the locusts to come.)

As "Forces of Nature" begins, Ben Holmes (Ben Affleck) and Bridget Cahill (Maury Tierney) are about to be married. Ben lives in New York; Sarah is from Savannah, Georgia, where the wedding is to take place. Everyone is on edge because a hurricane brewing in the Atlantic threatens to wreak havoc on the impending nuptials. Two days before the event, Ben boards a plane for the trip south. As luck would have it, a hapless seagull is sucked into one of the plane's engines, and it skids off the runway, resulting in minor injuries. One of the passengers is a young woman named Sarah Lewis (Sandra Bullock), who is en route to Florida to transact some business. Following the crash, she credits Ben with saving her life. Concerned about the possibility of another aviation mishap, they decide to share the cost of a rental car. There are no cars available, but they meet a man who already has one, and he agrees to drive them to their destinations. From this point on, the aforementioned Murphy's Law intervenes with a vengeance.

If "Forces of Nature" were nothing but a succession of calamities, it would be funny, but nothing to write home about. On another level, however, it is an exceptional movie with a great deal of heart. There is a tradition for this type of movie, as well, and it includes "It Happened One Night", which won an Oscar for Best Picture in 1934. The worst thing that can happen to anyone about to be married is to fall in love with someone else. Ben finds Sarah enchanting and unique, and soon he develops feelings for her. To make matters worse, nearly everyone he meets has a horror story about marriage. Before long, Ben's pre-wedding jitters turn into a panic, and he is in turmoil. The hurricane gaining strength off the coast of Georgia is nothing compared to the storm wreaking havoc on Ben's peace of mind. To paraphrase Hamlet, "To wed or not to wed, that is the question".

Ben Affleck is not an especially exciting actor (in my opinion), but in this movie he is very convincing as a man in the throes of indecision. Sandra Bullock is terrific as a free spirit who turns out to have more depth than you might expect. The supporting cast is entertaining, as well, and the dialogue is witty and intelligent. If you can forgive the director and writer for straining the limits of credulity with a preposterous plot, you should find this a very funny and poignant film.