Sorry this forum needs one of these. I have yet to see a Hitchcock film that was as painful to sit through as this one. I kept waiting for it to get interesting and it never did! Wheres the suspense? *Spoiler* Are you telling me you guys didnt see it coming that Max was involved with his wife's death? Maybe just the last 5 minutes were at all suprising but not worth the 2 hours of seeing that tight wooden Olivier brooding over and over again.
share"Juno and the Paycock" is a lot worse than any of the movies named here - Hitchcock made some early movies that few people have heard of.
I like both Rebecca and Rope - I think they're more interesting than the work he did after 1955.
Hitchcock did Juno and Paycock, because he had no other projects at that time.
shareI've always found "The Paradine Case" & "Under Capricorn" to be snoozers.
"There are 10 kinds of people, some understand binary and some don't!"
Wouldn't some of stinkers before The Man Who Knew Much are waaaaaaaaaaaay worse than Rebecca or Rope.
Walttzes Of Vienna (a musical?)
Champagne?
Even Hitch thought they were POS.
CR
agreed - i did not like this movie
it's probably because i was expecting it to be like other's i've seen (hitchcock's) - instead it was meant to be good for it's directing and acting etc
something which i'm not bothered about in a movie
the plot was awful too - don't see how it got these high ratings and def doesn't deserve to be #71!
I do like "Rebecca", it's not the typical Hitchcock movie, but Mrs. Danvers help set a dark atmosphere. There are definitely worse Hitchcock movies - some of the pre-war films in Britain are, if not average, just slightly better than average. I think it's disingenuous to label something the "best" or "worse" unless you have seen everything that director or actor has done.
Joan Fontaine is great in this movie - she comes off as being someone who is out of her element. Most people would be uncomfortable in these settings - look at the place setting when she first comes to the mansion. There are 3 knives, forks, and spoons (possibly more that aren't noticeable), a monogrammed napkin with lace, the huge dining table, etc.
Hitchcock worst is Topaz, but not for the political content. Hitchcock said that in Vertigo he showed the audience at the beggining of the second part of the movie, that the 2 Kim Novaks were one and the same. Otherwise the audience would have felt that a new movie was starting. That's exaclty what happens in Topaz. Once the Cuban big shot kills Juanita, a completely new story begans. Both sections are connected solely by the presence of the main star, a totally bland James Bond-type (and of course the cold war political climate).
Frenzy is not that bad, but the heroe is totally unapealling, we don't actually care what happens to him; the leading lady is homely (at least for a Hitchcock heroine); and the villain is quite repulsive. Villians, in order to work, must be fascinating: (suave) James Mason in North by Northwest, Anthony Perkins in Pshycho, Jack Palance in "Shane", Orson Welles in The Third Man, and so on... Frenzy is hard to swallow.
Topaz is reportedly one of Hitchcock's unhappy directing jobs. And he didn't get enough time to work on the script. Some of the Scenes were written hours before the shooting.
shareTalking of the low Cold War films let's not forget the forgettable "Torn Curtain." Didn't Hitchcock say Paradine Case was his least fave, or nearly so?
shareThe Paradine Case isn't Hitchcock's least favorite. He liked the film. But Selznick destroyed many of suspense and brilliant elements in the film by trimmming the film into 114 minutes.
Hitchcock's least favorites are Waltzes from Vienna, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and Jamaica Inn. Hitchcock also disliked Torn Curtain and Topaz.
Hitchcock didn't get enough time to work on Topaz. Some of the Scenes were written hours before the shooting. Hitchcock wanted to do many changes in the story. But he didn't had time.
But I thought there are lots of interesting ideas in it.
To Catch a Theif. That movie is the only movie of Hitchcock's that I don't like, simply because all it is is an exhibition of Grace Kelly, Cary Grant, and their fabulous clothes. There is not enough plot for the length of the movie, and not enough excitement to even fill up one scene, let alone an entire film.
share
Hitchcock himself called To Catch A Thief a lightweight story. I thought it was ok. But I did like one particular scene - "Mother, you are reading the book upside down."
I suppose how Rebecca stacks up against other Hitchcock films is debatable, but I personally think it is an all time classic in itself. The elements that make this movie so outstanding are atmosphere, mood, cinematography, acting by an excellent cast, and direction. A key element also is Selznick’s insistence that Hitchcock remain loyal to the novel, much to the director’s annoyance. For this reason Hitchcock doesn’t consider Rebecca one of his movies. But I think in this case it was wise for him to not stray far from the original story. Selznick was keenly aware of the popularity of the novel and was terrified of rejection by millions of Du Maurier’s fans had he allowed Hitchcock to have a free hand. Still much of his influence is apparent, and through his direction, or more specifically, manipulation, Joan Fontaine’s performance is outstanding.
shareI just watched this again last Tuesday; a double feature back to back.
-Rebecca
-Rebecca w/commentary
Mrob---
. . . I agree with you, Rebecca is a superbly done film with much going for it . . . as you say, it is up against other, shall we say, more popular films of Hitchcock . . . it deserved its Academy Award for Best Picture . . .
[deleted]
Rebecca is a lame, dated, slow-moving Hitchcock movie.
The big revelations are hopelessly convoluted and plot-negating. Here's the final hour's worth of conflicts which all miraculously reverse themselves into pointlessness. --- Maxim can't bear to be reminded of Rebecca apparently because she was such a paragon of womanhood. Oh, but wait, he actually hated her; what a stroke of luck for our heroine! --- Someone else is buried in Rebecca's grave... meaning Rebecca's still alive? Nope, she's dead anyway. --- Rebecca was a conniving bitch and was provoking Maxim to kill her. Oh, but luckily, she accidentally fell and died. --- Rebecca was probably pregnant making it look like Maxim killed her, Oh, but no, luckily she was full of cancer and would have died that month anyway.
Oh, come on!
One of these limp developments would have been too many. Generally, we don't go to movies to watch dumb luck neutralize a catalog of threats in someone's life.
There is completely no suspense. And of course it was predictable that Maxim was involved with his wife's death. It's not a bad movie, it's ok.
Every Alfred movie I found drastically overrated with exception of Psycho, which is by far his best film.
Rebecca is a wonderful film, but is evident that some people have a terrible taste on movies.
I'd definitely not call it his best, but worst? Please... you can only say that if you've only seen "Vertigo", "Psycho" and this...?!
"I did cramps the way Meryl Streep did accents" - Calliope (Middlesex)
[deleted]
I'd say To Catch a Thief, among his classics, that I've seen. I do think The Birds has weaknesses, most of all Tippi Hedron (she's quite good in Marnie, though, pretty ironic considering the title role is considerably challenging for any actress); she was beautiful but she didn't have the charisma or true coolness of Grace Kelly or Kim Novak. However, I do enjoy the haunting stillness of the film, and the fact that it was filmed close to where I live gives it a personal connection.
"GOD--WAS--WRONG!"--James Mason, Bigger Than Life
[deleted]