nickcluxton

I have been looking forward to seeing this film for quite a while, and when I finally had a chance I was pretty quick to take it up. As I started it, I regretted it immediately, I was bored and annoyed. Towards the end, it began to grow on me, but a lot just didn't do it for me.

What I liked: I absolutely love the concept and the story. I have not seen any like it. What I like most is that while there is an actual plot and external events, it's more of a character study. They take an unlikable character and give him plenty of depth and sympathy to make up for his brash decisions and opinions. I love Woody Allen as a writer. I also liked the short stories; how they were narrated, the actual relevance they had to Harry's problems and friends, and how they were somewhat diverse. It wasn't just about the message. I both liked and disliked the scenes where they would cut to the same shot. It is very reminiscent of Jean- Loc Goddard's Breathless, which at times gave it a very relaxed, more realistic feel, considering that you could interpret that there were probably moments of silence between conversation, like something that happens in real conversation. However, when you cut in mid-sentence or make too many quick cuts, it's distracting and annoying to try and listen.

What I hated: While I love that film is about Harry Block, I hated him. His guts, his obsession with sex, and the fact that he is so damn awkward. I hate Woody Allen as an actor. I appreciate when people stutter, pause, mix up words, or ramble in movies because that's what people do in real life. However, Woody Allen takes it and makes it absolutely obnoxious. His arms flail around, he never makes eye contact (or keeps his eyes on the road while driving).

Overall, the word I would use to describe this movie is 'inconsistent,' with some scene being very funny and entertaining, while others made me want to scratch my DVD apart.

Whenever I watch a movie, I know the difference between when it's bad and when I simply don't like it. I feel the same way about 'High Noon' as I do with many Hitchcock films. From a technical aspect, it's nearly perfect, but I don't find it very entertaining.

'High Noon' won an Oscar for best editing, which was well deserved as the editing was by the books. However, in my personal opinion, it had too much structure and no style. I like films like 'Lock, Stock, & 2 Smoking Barrels' or 'Magnolia' because they are a little more eccentric with the way the film progresses, not just with each shot but even the plot overall. 'High Noon' is very straightforward and keeps a steady pace, never seeming to speed up or slow down. This makes sense seeing as the film is in real time, but with so few actions this gets tedious very quickly.

Again, I will acknowledge that 'High Noon' is very well done. It might be my disinterest in Westerns, or that I like character studies and intertwining stories and than a straightforward plot, but 'High Noon' just isn't to my taste. The character development is at a bare minimum and the acting is very stale.

The acting is what reminds me so much of Hitchcock in that the characters follow the story ever so precisely that they don't stand out on their own. Some people prefer that, I don't.

From a critical view, I'd give it an 8 or 9/10, but from a personal point of view, I didn't find it very entertaining. 5/10.