Hi Mick:Can you name a movie or two where you passed up taking the review assignment, but eventually you saw the film and thought that you would have had fun writing about it.
唐纳德•Blais旧金山
Hi Donald:回顾电影我s a bit harder than it looks. Each movie must be approached differently, and half the time I start out barely knowing what I’m going to say. Consequently, I never feel like I missed out on a rollicking good time when I don’t review one. I just missed out on some mild stress.
However, I do sometimes feel like I should have reviewed something. Last year, I had a nasty cold and didn’t get to review “Tar,” which turned out to be the most interesting movie of 2022.
Hi Mick:What is your opinion of Australian director Peter Weir? We watched “Witness” recently — an excellent film that still holds up after almost 40 years.
Paul Sheinfeld, Novato
Hi Paul:He’s terrific: “Picnic at Hanging Rock,” “Gallipoli,” “The Mosquito Coast,” “Fearless,” “The Truman Show.”
We’ll let time sort out whether he’s a great or near-great director, but seriously, what’s not to like?
Greetings Mick:“Suspicion” (1941) would have been a much better movie had the original ending been retained, but as you know, preview audiences did not want to see Cary Grant as a villain.
Gustavo Serina, San Francisco
Greetings Gustavo:This answer is going to contain spoilers, folks, so brace yourself.
“Suspicion” is an Alfred Hitchcock movie about a shy young woman (Joan Fontaine), who marries a flashy ne’er-do-well (Cary Grant), and at a certain point she begins to suspect he plans to kill her. In the original book — and in the movie’s original plan — he gives her a glass of milk that she believes is poisoned. She drinks it, anyway, and dies. That ending was tested and audiences laughed at it, because they thought it was ridiculous: Why would she do that?
It’s one thing to make something believable in a book and another to make it work in a drama. I think the best ending for that movie is the one it has, in which it’s revealed that he’snota murderer and never dreamed of being one.
Think of it this way: If he’s a murderer, it’s boring. It just means that he’s been lying to everybody the entire movie. But if he’s not a murderer, he’s interesting — manipulative, maddening and deceitful, but also affectionate and sincere. It means he’s complicated, just like Cary Grant.
By the way, I’m the only critic who thinks this, but this time I’m the one who’s right.
Dear Mick LaSalle: How do you rate Al Jolson as both singer and actor?
Robert Freud Bastin, Petaluma
Dear Robert Freud Bastin:As a singer: He’s one of a kind — not anybodyI’dever listen to, but he’s definitely his own thing.
As an actor: He’s sappy, self-pitying and insanely needy. Freakishly interesting, but borderline unbearable.
Dear Mr. LaSalle:你蔑视Jersey City in your (Aug. 6) column. You’re from the “far reaches” of Staten Island, so how much can you know about Jersey City?
Joe Lochte, Alameda
Dear Mr. Lochte:The only thing I know about Jersey City is how to drive there by accident. The signs coming out of the Newark airport are notoriously confusing, and if you make a single mistake, you end up on the Pulaski Skyway, heading for Jersey City. And there’s no turning back, because, as you know, you’re in the sky. Aside from those repeated sort-of-hostage situations, I’ve never actually been there. So, you do have a point.
Have a question? Ask Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.