Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 0:43:39 GMT
I know people think he was, but I don't think so. But some of his movies are not as good as their reputation.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 17, 2017 0:52:13 GMT
I really dislike most of his early stuff like The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) or Secret Agent (1936); 39 Steps was awesome though!
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Nov 17, 2017 0:56:15 GMT
I have heard a bit about his background but I can't say I have taken the time to really read about him, as a person.
It is true that some of his movies are now considered classics but he had some misses too.
Foreign correspondent? Technically it might have been solid but gosh it was boring. Same for Suspicion and The Paradine Case. The Lady vanishes somewhat had the "wrong" ending for what it brought.
On the other side, Notorious, Saboteur and Lifeboat were pretty good. I must say that one thing that truly surprised me was having Julie Andrews and Paul Newman play a couple in Torn Curtain, which is a typical Hitchcock movie. It was weird at first but it worked.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 17, 2017 1:03:29 GMT
He was not.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 17, 2017 1:29:02 GMT
Not a hack but he was a studio stepping stool. He got a lot of press because he was doing the "your society sucks" propaganda message. The white male characters had to fail. I think Vertigo is getting a lot of Liberal love these days because it has so much white male failure aspects to it (even though Stewart overcomes his neurosis--they have to rob him of victory by the death).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 1:40:41 GMT
Granted every film he has made hasn't stood the test of time, but he was one of the greatest directors of the 20th century. There were plenty of "hack" directors out there, but nobody remembers their names or works.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Nov 17, 2017 1:44:43 GMT
I know people think he was, but I don't think so. But some of his movies are not as good as their reputation. Anybody who thinks that Hitchcock was a hack has profaned my world sir or madam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 1:47:17 GMT
The 39 Steps is freaking AWESOME.
Vertigo is SO overrated. Too slow, too boring and Stewart is too old.
Foreign Correspondent has that great scene when the hero gets caught in the windmill mechanism. The ending seems out of place though.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Nov 17, 2017 1:50:28 GMT
I'm a big fan of Lifeboat and Rear Window
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Nov 17, 2017 2:10:48 GMT
Certainly not a hack but his 1946 thru 1950 period was pretty bad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 2:17:26 GMT
Certainly not a hack but his 1946 thru 1950 period was pretty bad To each his own, but I really enjoyed "Notorious" and absolutely loved "Rope".
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Nov 17, 2017 2:24:04 GMT
I know people think he was, but I don't think so. But some of his movies are not as good as their reputation.Here we go... again... Many of us " youngsters" have gotten spoiled by all of the movies that have come out, SINCE, Hitchcock stopped making movies. When compared to the newer movies that we watch today... ( <-- AND HERE IS THE BIG PROBLEM! ) Many people will not appreciate or will be impacted by those films... and many other older films too... As the viewers who saw Hitchcock's films at the time that they were in the theaters, were. When the older generations saw those films, they were ground breaking and earth shattering. No one had made movies like those before. They had nothing (NEW & BETTER) to compare them to... Example: I thought Tim Burton's "Batman", was the best Batman movie ever made... until I saw "Batman Begins"... Now I rarely watch Tim Burton's "Batman" anymore, because I know that a better movie can be made, and I would rather see those instead. I'm sure if I saw Tim Burton's "Batman" for the first time, today, I would think it was terrible. The reputation these movies received, were earned, because they were the best movies at the time. Most of the ratings and reputations are based on reviews from the generations that saw them in the theaters. Think of it like this: 50 years ago, Audiences rated the movies 9/10. Today, Audiences might rate the movies 6/10. Movies are NOT "dated", but their reputations can be "dated". As more "youngsters" see these movies, the ratings and reputations will drop. ( Not sure if this is good or bad, but it is the reality we live in.) That's not to say that the older movies are not bad, or that they are unwatchable... But, if you compare any older movie, to newer movies, YOU WILL NOT ENJOY THEM. You HAVE TO pretend that it is, 1960 (or whatever year the movie came out), and that newer movies and better special effects don't exist, when you watch older films. If you can do this, you might feel differently about these films... If you can't, well then, I recommend that you just don't watch older films. Hopefully, you will be able to enjoy these older films. They really are good. If you don't, that is fine too. Not every type of film, is for everybody. (I don't like every film that is made, even ones in the theaters today )
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Nov 17, 2017 2:43:37 GMT
Not to my knowledge.
He might've been a dick tho. But his films are spot on.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Nov 17, 2017 5:04:36 GMT
There are idiots who have all kind of stupid theories so I'm not too surprised. Millennials maybe? Anyway anyone who thinks Hitchcock is a "hack" doesn't have the slightest grasp on what defines a good film.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Nov 18, 2017 1:58:45 GMT
But, if you compare any older movie, to newer movies, YOU WILL NOT ENJOY THEM. You HAVE TO pretend that it is, 1960 (or whatever year the movie came out), and that newer movies and better special effects don't exist, when you watch older films. If you can do this, you might feel differently about these films... I have to disagree with this. Personally, most of the older movies I compare to newer movies generally seem more enjoyable, because they don't rely on "better" special effects or other supposed improvements. I find the original King Kong far superior to any of the more recent versions, which look flat and cartoonish. The Universal monster movies of the 1930s, shot in eerie black-and-white, with little gore and somewhat antiquated acting styles, are much more fun than today's unrestrained bloodfests. Scriptwriters were forced to write strong dialogue as they were largely banned from using profanity or even being too blunt--a remake of Casablanca, if made today, would allow Rick to call Ilsa a whore, and Captain Renault could describe in graphic detail just what he does when dealing with all those "visa problems," but how many people would remember that dialogue? When Silence of the Lambs first premiered, many critics and other reviewers anointed it as a newer, better Psycho, presumably dazzled by the graphic violence, the details of the crimes---and it was in glorious color, too! But Silence of the Lambs doesn't seem to have aged all that well, and its lack of subtlety makes it just another grisly gorefest, while Psycho still seems timeless, despite the 1960s backdrop. Despite the age of the films, Hitchcock's themes in his best movies still are relevant. (I would have to agree with the poster who didn't like Vertigo--the goofy dream sequence just seems silly, and Stewart is way too old for the role.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2017 2:30:18 GMT
But, if you compare any older movie, to newer movies, YOU WILL NOT ENJOY THEM. You HAVE TO pretend that it is, 1960 (or whatever year the movie came out), and that newer movies and better special effects don't exist, when you watch older films. If you can do this, you might feel differently about these films... I have to disagree with this. Personally, most of the older movies I compare to newer movies generally seem more enjoyable, because they don't rely on "better" special effects or other supposed improvements. I find the original King Kong far superior to any of the more recent versions, which look flat and cartoonish. The Universal monster movies of the 1930s, shot in eerie black-and-white, with little gore and somewhat antiquated acting styles, are much more fun than today's unrestrained bloodfests. Scriptwriters were forced to write strong dialogue as they were largely banned from using profanity or even being too blunt--a remake of Casablanca, if made today, would allow Rick to call Ilsa a whore, and Captain Renault could describe in graphic detail just what he does when dealing with all those "visa problems," but how many people would remember that dialogue? When Silence of the Lambs first premiered, many critics and other reviewers anointed it as a newer, better Psycho, presumably dazzled by the graphic violence, the details of the crimes---and it was in glorious color, too! But Silence of the Lambs doesn't seem to have aged all that well, and its lack of subtlety makes it just another grisly gorefest, while Psycho still seems timeless, despite the 1960s backdrop. Despite the age of the films, Hitchcock's themes in his best movies still are relevant. (I would have to agree with the poster who didn't like Vertigo--the goofy dream sequence just seems silly, and Stewart is way too old for the role.) You had me 100% until Vertigo! I agree that Stewart was a bit old, and that was one of the gripes about the film when it was released, but I still loved his performance. I'm trying to think of someone who would have fit into that role. He would have have to have been a bit older for it to work with this character though IMHO, just not as old as Stewart. He would also have to have been capable of putting in a strong performance. Maybe Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck, or Burt Lancaster? Otherwise I was enthralled with the whole work.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 18, 2017 2:37:50 GMT
Not a hack but he was a studio stepping stool. He got a lot of press because he was doing the "your society sucks" propaganda message. The white male characters had to fail. I think Vertigo is getting a lot of Liberal love these days because it has so much white male failure aspects to it (even though Stewart overcomes his neurosis--they have to rob him of victory by the death). Vertigo being the latest Sight & Sound #1 based on criteria such as, & I quote via wikipedia... Commenting upon the 2012 results, the magazine's editor Nick James said that Vertigo was "the ultimate critics' film. It is a dream-like film about people who are not sure who they are but who are busy reconstructing themselves and each other to fit a kind of cinema ideal of the ideal soul-mate."Ugh... yeah, I'll take Casablanca, Citizen Kane, 2001 A Space Odyssey, over reasoning like that. 'The ultimate critics' film'?? child please. Vertigo would make my top 200, it's very good, don't get me wrong. I simply don't gush over it.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 18, 2017 2:40:07 GMT
To the question at hand, no Hitch is not a hack. He's an auteur & if you dislike his stuff, so be it.
It felt like he didn't quite align with the Hollywood machine. His tv stuff is very good also, still in his own lane. Rear Window & Psycho both make my top 50. North by Northwest & Vertigo would make my top 200.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Nov 18, 2017 3:00:22 GMT
there were a few movies I have seen and I was like 'okay, now I've seen it' and then go on with my life.
then there is Rear Window. I could watch that every single night.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 18, 2017 10:12:41 GMT
He's definitely overrated to say the least.
|
|