|
Post by hi224 on Nov 18, 2017 11:21:38 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". fighting words!.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Nov 18, 2017 18:40:23 GMT
...Hitch was not a hack...his TV series (for example) was a brilliant anthology of mystery stories.
This thread should be played to the tune of "Funeral March of the Marionettes"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2017 19:28:28 GMT
To each his own, but I really enjoyed "Notorious" and absolutely loved "Rope". fighting words!. This thread lead me to watch "Rope" again for the first time in several years. What a gem of a film!! How Hitchcock made it appear to be one continuous through meticulous moving camerawork made the story flow, all in an hour and twenty minutes. I never noticed how much the character of Brandon (John Dall) looked like Ben Affleck until this viewing.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 18, 2017 19:31:24 GMT
This thread lead me to watch "Rope" again for the first time in several years. What a gem of a film!! How Hitchcock made it appear to be one continuous through meticulous moving camerawork made the story flow, all in an hour and twenty minutes. I never noticed how much the character of Brandon (John Dall) looked like Ben Affleck until this viewing. Lol I agree, by the way Dall and Granger were so oscar nom worthy here. Ugh i really wish those performances where discussed more.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 18, 2017 19:39:30 GMT
His obvious classics are SECRET AGENT, THE MANXMAN, and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Hard to have three classics and be a hack.
About 20 others I would call very good films. ROPE, THE LADY VANISHES, SABOTAGE, SABOTEUR, THE WRONG MAN, come close to classic status.
But when one considers his worst movies, like Rebecca and The Birds, one can make the case if that's all one has seen of him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2017 19:45:49 GMT
This thread lead me to watch "Rope" again for the first time in several years. What a gem of a film!! How Hitchcock made it appear to be one continuous through meticulous moving camerawork made the story flow, all in an hour and twenty minutes. I never noticed how much the character of Brandon (John Dall) looked like Ben Affleck until this viewing. Lol I agree, by the way Dall and Granger were so oscar nom worthy here. Ugh i really wish those performances where discussed more. They absolutely were oscar nominee performances. I'm just thinking the academy may have been a little shy to really dissect and debate what those performances conveyed in public in 1948!
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 18, 2017 21:57:55 GMT
Well, umm...
Following the theme of this thread, I've decided to ask some questions in the same vein:
Does 2+2=5?
Does the word tomorrow actually mean "three pints of applesauce"?
Is up actually down?
Is water dry?
If I sit down in a chair, am I standing up?
By the by, @nxnwrocks started off this thread by stating Respectfully, who are these people? Everyone is more than entitled to his own opinion, but I'll just say I've never in my life met anyone who considered Hitchcock a "hack." Some moderns who'd never heard of him, other than (perhaps) Psycho? Yes. But a "hack"? That implies some knowledge about film (I hope). There are some people who prefer some of his movies to others, perhaps contrary to public opinion, but I've never heard of any critic who called him a hack.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 18, 2017 22:02:33 GMT
He's definitely overrated to say the least. What does overrated mean in this context, and on which films are you basing this judgment?
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Nov 18, 2017 22:24:05 GMT
He's definitely overrated to say the least. Who thinks he is "overrated"? Just YOU? There's nothing "Definite" about your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Nov 18, 2017 22:46:36 GMT
mslovak has been on my quiet ignore list [can read his/her posts but that is it] for the longest time. I have never ever met a more intolerant person.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 18, 2017 22:48:53 GMT
He's definitely overrated to say the least. To say he's "overrated" is to underrate him.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Nov 18, 2017 23:16:28 GMT
He's definitely overrated to say the least. To say he's "overrated" is to underrate him. I think you are very close to being correct... "Overrated" is a misused term, with how it typically gets used in these kinds of discussion forums. For Example... Let's Say: 100,000 voters believe a movie rates a 9/10... And ONE person would rate a movie 1/10... Then that ONE person can NOT claim that a movie is "overrated"... because that is NOT how things work! One voter's opinion, will never out way the value of the accumulated votes of 100,000 others. Many people frequently use "overrated" like this, and that is pure BS. In actuality, it would be more accurate to say, these "single" votes underrate these films.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 19, 2017 4:20:08 GMT
MCDemuth Then how do you use that term? ; because what you described i think sums up the meaning of how someone uses the label 'overrated' in that a random person feels someone or something gets too much credit. a quick look on Google, it says this for the term overrated... "have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved". so basically what i said would apply as i, or another random person, feels someone or something gets too much credit. but i have a feeling the 'deserved' part of that is where people would try go at things as you might feel someone deserves something that i might not and vice versa etc. so i don't see how you are coming to that conclusion that you are that it's all BS. i would assume most people see that 'overrated' term like i just described. also, i think some people like to give credit for people who might be ahead of their time etc but i never look at things like that as when it comes to movies it's all about how interesting/enjoyable etc they are to watch and the further they get away from that the lower the rating as rating any other way makes no sense since it's pretty safe for me to say the majority, if not the vast majority, of people watch movies because they find them to be interesting/entertaining and the like. with that said... if you want to go by majority opinion on a director or movie as the 'correct' one then chances are ill be in the minority on Hitchcock if i had to guess. but at the same time i can't be the only person who feels his movies are basically nothing special. p.s. for the record... the vast majority of movies (without going too far off the radar) are no where near the more extreme ratings. most movies are generally in that average/middle-of-the-road range, give or take a bit. It's pretty much guaranteed that i am not the only person who would find his movies to be overrated. so technically your wrong since you said just me and emphasized it. also, i never said anything 'definitive' either (i just said 'definitely overrated', basically just me emphasizing he gets too much credit). it's obviously just my opinion but i never say 'just my opinion' since it really goes without saying as we all have opinions on here and then we post them. movies are all subjective as it's not like we have a direct way to measure someones greatness etc. so basically you can't say i am wrong if i say he's overrated and i can't say your wrong if you want to praise Hitchcock. deembastille How am i intolerant when it comes to my views on movies? if you mean religious views and the like... of course ill be against views that go against what i believe to be the truth. naturally, if someone feels what someone does is morally wrong etc, they won't support it. Nalkarj Well mainly just on Psycho (1960) since that's all i have seen from Hitchcock but it's unlikely i would think his movies are anywhere near as good as they get credit for on IMDb. hence, it's pretty safe for me to claim what i did about him. p.s. also, as a general guideline for me... i tend to avoid watching movies prior to the 1960's as they just tend to be too different from more modern standards. Doghouse6 The only way that makes any sense is if you feel he deserves about as high of praise as one can get and you must be a huge fan. because he's already beefed up quite a bit as it is as it's hard to say someone would be underrated when they are more on the higher praised side already. it's much easier for someone to claim something is overrated when it's already generally praised or something is underrated when it's generally so-so ratings etc vs when something is already praised and trying to praise it some more.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 19, 2017 4:49:44 GMT
Nalkarj Well mainly just on Psycho (1960) since that's all i have seen from Hitchcock but it's unlikely i would think his movies are anywhere near as good as they get credit for on IMDb. hence, it's pretty safe for me to claim what i did about him. p.s. also, as a general guideline for me... i tend to avoid watching movies prior to the 1960's as they just tend to be too different from more modern standards. Well, that's just the point: how can one rationally judge any man's entire life's work by one movie? Contrariwise, and respectfully, I wouldn't say it's a pretty safe judgment at all. Too, from your second statement it seems that you don't like pre-'60s movies--which is quite different from me, as all of my favorite movies are in fact pre-1960. I'm certainly not arguing with your taste, or saying that your opinion is invalid, but in order to form judgments--especially snap ones like "he's a hack"--one must at least understand, even if not like, what one is judging. Again, before articulating all-encompassing judgments, it may be best to think through what others are saying and watch the movies in question. Hope that helps to explain where we're coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 19, 2017 4:59:19 GMT
mslo79As for the "overrated" question, this is what my friend mikef6 wrote on the subject (in discussing Citizen Kane on the Classics board), and I'm inclined to agree with him: You may like or dislike Hitchcock, and that's fine (though, as stated, in my opinion one should make a rational judgment after an analysis of the work at hand, not an a priori declaration about the quality of his work, positively or negatively), but those of us who do like his work have not overrated it ipso facto. To the contrary, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 19, 2017 5:01:43 GMT
NalkarjI can easily see why you came to this conclusion but i know myself pretty well when it comes to movies and i would be surprised if i changed my mind with the basic overrated comment on Hitchcock. sure, it's possible i could like some of his movies, as i won't go as far as to claim i won't like any of them, but... i doubt i would like them anywhere near the praise they seem to get. hence, my overrated comment is likely to stay intact. hell, just in general... i feel i have hit a point for a while now that it's simply getting more difficult to find movies that stand out to a higher degree for me (i.e. basically movies i would consider amongst My Favorite Movies(i.e. all movies i score a 7/10 or higher)) from the past that i have not already seen. sure, i think it's possible there could still be some out there from the past that i would score a 7/10 (or higher) but it won't be easy to find them as i would likely have to watch a bunch of mostly forgettable movies to 'maybe' find a decent gem once in a while. so that's why i am in no rush and i just watch whatever i watch and whatever happens, happens. p.s. there is only 196 movies out of the 2,150+ total movies i have seen that i scored a 7/10 or higher. that's only about 9% of everything i have seen. I am not going to call him a 'hack', as i am sure he's still professional level, but i just feel he's overrated is all. also, technically... there is one pre-1960's movie amongst My Favorite Movies (i.e. Top 196 movies) but i consider it more of a exception to my general rule. just finding pre-1960's movies that i 'mildly like' won't be easy but to hit 7/10 or higher status, which would make them amongst My Favorite Movies, is where i expect things to be next to non-existent. Yeah, it's cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 5:04:16 GMT
The good thing about this thread is that I'm remembering actually how good the man really was at his craft and I'm seeking out some of his works that I haven't had the opportunity to see before, and some I haven't seen in several years. In the age of streaming content, there's so many masterpieces there to be had with a few clicks of the mouse.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 19, 2017 5:10:22 GMT
I apologize for going on too much, mslo79, but that's a viewpoint I simply cannot countenance. A human being simply cannot judge until he knows what he is judging. Anything else is uncritical and, more than that, irrational. It's a bit like politics: I am of one party, but if there's a candidate of the other party that I happen to like (and in my case I know there are such politicians), then I'll be happy to support that other party's candidate. If I didn't consider that party at all, though, and just said, "I know myself pretty well, and I know I'm not going to like their politics," then I would never form a fair judgment based on evaluating the pluses and minuses of both candidates. OK, that's my last word to you on this specific subject, but I hope it gives you food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Nov 19, 2017 5:14:59 GMT
I take it as he's a victim of his own success and ingenuity. His work inspired some of the tropes we've become used to seeing in suspense/thriller movies. It's no surprise that after fifty years someone may piggyback off of Hitchcock's ideas and execute it better. Interested viewers may be compelled to go back and search for the origin of said tropes, and will most likely leave underwhelmed. This was the genius of Wes Craven's "Scream" for me. He shone a light directly on the "rules" his own films (and others) had created.
Say Hitchcock only made "Psycho." He'd still be massively influential as "Psycho" introduced so many devices that would be (and still are) imitated and nodded to for the next fifty years of film.
"Rear Window" and "North by Northwest" are my favorites from him. There are also trace elements of those films in nearly every lauded modern thriller that come to mind.
Someone's gotta be first to walk through the spiderweb.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 19, 2017 5:24:49 GMT
I'm a bit confused here, kingkoopa. Who exactly piggybacked off Hitch's ideas and executed them better? To wit, who are his successors? DePalma? Zemeckis ( What Lies Beneath)? Branagh ( Dead Again, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit)? Bava ( La ragazza che sapeva troppo)? Chabrol ( Le beau Serge et al.)? I like a lot of these directors, but would you say they're superior or have made better-executed films? Speaking only for myself, I don't see anyone who has piggybacked off AH's ideas, innovative mise en scène and skill use of actors, and thematic purpose and made them better--but, either way, there aren't many candidates. The majority of modern thrillers seem more inspired by the movies the directors think Hitchcock made and not the movies he actually made (thus my repeated invocation of the "suspense vs. surprise" dichotomy that Hitchcock articulated so well and showcased throughout his oeuvre).
|
|