The blue screen FX look horrible in hi-def
They really, really do.
I almost bailed on the film during the godawful drunk-driving sequence.
Glad I stuck with it, as all in all it's a rather fun "popcorn" film by Hitchcock. Loved James Mason as the urbane villain; the young Martin Landau is effortlessly sinister even when he has no dialog.
Those FX shots are (mostly) hideous, however, especially when viewed in high definition. I'm not really referring to the Mt. Rushmore stuff -- just everything else.
They really take you out of the movie.
Instantly. And irrevocably.
Yes, I fully realize that was the technology available at the time -- but in the end, that's no excuse.
One of the aspects I most dislike about Hitchcock's filmography is his completely unnecessary reliance on back-projection/"blue screen" effects, often for the most mundane of shots.
Man gets out of taxi, pays the driver, then turns to look up at a building... Shot in a studio, using rear-projection!!!
WHY??????
It looks so effing fake. It positively screams "THIS IS NOT REAL! YOU ARE WATCHING A MOVIE FILMED ON AN INTERIOR SET!"
Was Hitchcock just lazy? Didn't believe in location shooting?
Yes, cameras were bigger and bulkier then... Sound recording was not as precise. But other filmmakers of the same period -- typically operationg with a lot less money -- would actually bother to film their actors riding in an actual car instead of sitting them down in a studio with a blue screen behind them.
Sadly, the obvious "studio-bound" nature of many of Hitchcock's films are going to hurt their reputation in the long run. (I'm talking from now to the end of this century & beyond.)
Send her to the snakes!