Am I the only one who thinks that “Rear Window” is not a great movie?

Nope.

You are not alone.

I was waiting for the plot twist, like the newlyweds were killers, but it never came.

I get it that Grace Kelly looks great.

And that gay Raymond Burr delivers a great performance.

Op = David O. Selznick

I was distracted by Kelly's luxurious and glamorous wardrobe., especially the black and white gown.

I’ve always wanted to love this movie, but it’s such a bore every time I try.

I think it's a fun movie.

She was never buried in the courtyard. If you can't get basic plot points right, OP, what's the point in listening to anything you have to say?

^^ Alma Reville

I enjoyed the set design.

In my opinion, all of the major Hitchcock films that I know -- PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO -- have tremendous, ridiculous, insane plot holes that outweigh whatever virtues these movies may have.

It's not very suspenseful but if you stop looking for the thriller aspect, it's an extraordinary film in the way it looks at love and marriage in all their forms through that window.

I enjoyed Thelma Ritter. She was a hidden treasure.

It’s fun to watch. I love Graces black on white gown.

I taught the film to high school seniors at an all-boys private school. They were so taken in with the plot that the entire class stayed through the final school bell to finish the last ten minutes.

It's a great movie for its form, performances and lurid perversity. Not for the plot. Sheesh.

[Quote] all of the major Hitchcock films that I know -- PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO -- have tremendous, ridiculous, insane plot holes

Movies are stories and all stories have conceits you need to accept in order to enjoy them.

He buried the head, not the whole body.

This is one of those deal breaker movies for me....liking things is, of course, subjective but if you don't like this movie then you definitely move to a different level of friendship circle.

Probably "Super Casual Aquaintance With Terrible Taste...Mostly Avoid"

If you play golf as well, then you're just dead to me.

I agree that it's unfairly named (along with Vertigo) as Hitchcock's masterpiece, when that title belongs to Shadow of a Doubt. But I guess it's popular enough that several tv shows have stolen the premise when they ran out of ideas.

[quote]R15 I love Graces black on white gown. Iconic

Almost the same dress (but designed by Jean Louis) appeared on Kim Novak that same year. WHO invented the look…. Mr. Louis, or Edith Head ? ?

Very mysterious!

This is not an insignificant movie.

I watched it again on Netflix recently, and while I appreciate that the film is built around the Kuleshov Effect, it's still a bore. I agree with Orson Welles, who said that once Hitchcock moved to color, he got lazy, and all of his color films were lit like television shows.

I'm not the biggest fan of James Stewart and Grace Kelly either, so that's another reason why I don't find it appealing.

I think teenagers who've never seen a Hitchcock movie would really enjoy “Rear Window” as almost a primer to the director's work. Like the earlier poster I also think "Shadow of a Doubt" is Hitchcock at the very top of his movie storytelling.

"DID YOU KILL HIM BECAUSE HE LIKED YA?! JUST BECAUSE HE LIKED YA?!"

It's such a good movie that it works in spite of the plot holes

my only problem with it was Grace involved with that ugly old man.

[bold]iStandWithMissLonelyhearts

I love this film, not least because it is the inspiration for one of my favorite album covers, Led Zep's [italic]Physical Graffiti.[/italic]

It's a perfect movie.

Like any movie if you think back on it a lot of it doesn't make sense though in Rear Window the final scene a wheelchair bound Jimmy Stewart is left alone by Thelma Ritter as she leaves to bail out Grace Kelly even though both she and Stuart know that Raymond Burr's character is onto them.

Like another 1954 Hitchcock film starring Grace Kelly, Dial M for Murder, Rear Window seems a bit talkie and over long but it makes better use of its one-set setting than Dial M

That's DL fave Thema Ritter R14!

Yeah and those flash bulbs. As if Thorwald could not have covered his eyes too….

And WHY bury her head in the first place?

I don't want any part of it.

* Surprised look.

can't finish this 1. I dislike the leads

R29 those are front windows, not rear windows.

What’s your source?

R32 Dial M was a stage play adaptation.

I think “Dial M” is extremely boring and was the wrong movie to use for 3D. The only good sequence is the attempted murder and then we just get a lot if 3D effects of lamps sitting on end tables.

R36 can't finish many things. Can't even write the word "one".

[quote]But I guess it's popular enough that several tv shows have stolen the premise when they ran out of ideas.

And a movie, starring DL favorite Shia LaBeouf

I am not saying it’s a bad movie. I liked watching it.

But I don’t understand why it’s considered Hitchcock’s best.

You can buy a picture for $600.

No Words.

R37, iirc an interview with Robert Plant in [italic]Creem[/italic] magazine or [italic]Rolling Stone[/italic] from 1982 when his first solo album came out. But it's been 40+ years since I read the article; I'll go through my old mags and see if I can find it.

I think it's in the same article where he discusses the pronunciation and meaning of "D’yer Mak’er" and/or "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp."l

If I'm wrong about it, I apologize in advance.

Again, iicrc; it's been a loooooonnngg time since I even thought about that article.

My favorite film of all time. I always accepted it as very stagey and visual, and not based on any sort of gritty reality. With its use of elaborate sets and dissonant sounds it seems to always choose atmosphere.

I find it interesting how an otherwise flawless Grace slightly flubs a line in one scene and it was left in, “Jeff, you know if someone came in here, they wouldn't believe what they'd see?” She trips pretty loudly over the word “see” and seems to want to have said “seen,” and corrects herself.

There’s also a subtle “blooper” (of sorts) just before the famous line, “Start from the beginning again Jeff. Tell me everything…” In the long zoom up to Grace’s face just before she says the line, you can literally hear the camera people and techs walking, creaking and stepping along the floorboards (as they move the heavy camera along a track?) in an otherwise quiet room.

R31 must be postmenopausal because they seem to have run out of periods.

“Awe shucks” I get tired of Jimmy Stewart. But I enjoyed him in The Thin Man.

[quote]Am I the only one who thinks that “Rear Window” is not a great movie?

No, because there are always dim bulbs who for some reason cannot recognize that verisimilitude is not often a feature that Hitchcock cares about. He does not stoop when it comes to satisfying bean-counting Philistines. He is a magician manipulating his audience with plainly theatrical maneuvers, and he knows that intelligent members of the audience will see his ploys as part of the glorious package.

You people are a really tough crowd. I'd be interested in what you do think is a great movie. This one is ranked #38 on the Sight & Sound poll of the 200 Greatest Films of All Time. 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, 8.5 on IMDB. It's always been a huge audience and critics' favorite.

By the way, great films are about more than the dresses worn by the leading lady and the supposed plot holes. What are some of those so-called plot holes, by the way? Are they major? Would they affect most people's enjoyment of a film? Or just picky eaters?

Anyone ever notice great toches such as Hitchcock using Bing Crosby's "To See You is to Love You" on the soundtrack as Miss Lonelyhearts entertains an imaginary, unseen visitor? No? There are hundreds of things like that.

James Stewart wasn't in The Thin Man, he was in one of the subsequent films in the series.

[quote]Movies are stories and all stories have conceits you need to accept in order to enjoy them.

Yes, but I don't have to accept them if I don't like them and if I think they make hash of the movie. Like the opening of the movie, where we see a cop fall off a high roof to his death, screaming on the way down, and then we see Jimmy Stewart hanging from the same height by his fingers, with no help in sight -- and then there's a fade to another scene, months later, where Stewart seems to have only sustained a minor injury. What a weird way to start your flick, Hitch! Are you trying to tell your audiences, "In my movies, ANYTHING can happen on a whim, so nothing really means anything.?"

As a critic said on a "making of" feature I watched recently (of a Hitchcock film), audiences today need everything spelled out and explained to them, which is why a lot of movies run 2.5 to 3 hours.

r14, Thelma Ritter may be "hidden" to some degree nowadays, but she received six Academy Award nominations in her long career. No wins, though,

Thelma did win a Tony in 1958 for New Girl in Town (musical version of Anna Christie, with Gwen Verdon). She made her film debut at age 45 and died at 66.

Imagine, Macy’s sending me to Gimbel’s!

Separately OP I appreciate your phrasing “only one who” instead of “only one that”. I notice that writers now often use “that” when describing humans, and it sounds less refined.

R46 You're hearing things. I just replayed that scene "Tell me everything you saw and what you think it means") and there's no crew on the soundtrack. The crackle is just ambient sound and it's all over the movie.

I thought it was generally accepted by critics that Vertigo is not only Hitchcock’s best, but routinely voted as one of the best movies of all time.

I think Psycho is his absolute masterpiece. Flawless, not a false move.

The Lady Vanishes and Frenzy are probably my Hitchcock favorites, followed by The Birds and Rear Window.

I think Vertigo is a bore.

OP, what list do you refer to proclaiming that Rear Window is a great movie? I'd like to see it (or them if multiple).

Do I think it's "great"? No, but it definitely hits lists of great films for the way it is shot... everything is seen through Stewart's window, but we never enter the neighbor's homes/spaces; we are only voyeurs (like Stewart, Kelly, and Ritter). And even though we olny view other lives, in the course of the movie we come to know the different characters and care for them (or some)... Miss Lonleyhearts, the musician, the newleyweds, the young dancer, the couple with the dog, the Thorndikes... keeping us at arm's length but letting us into their lives is why it received considerable press and evaluation.

PLUS, Grace is beautiful throughout and Hitchcock does everything he can with camera and lighting to proclaim that he thinks she's a goddess worthy of adoration... even at the end with her in jeans!

[quote]I think Psycho is his absolute masterpiece. Flawless, not a false move.

And filmed in 14 days.

I never took it as an actual murder taking place. I gave Raymond Burr credit for being shady, but I always thought it was some guy trapped in his house with that cast on, a photographer by trade, so he was watching people all day, and trying to make it interesting by concocting various scenarios. We were seeing all those people through his lens.

Yes, R64, there should be “Rear Window - The Other Side.”

We live in an era of Villain Redemption anyways.

[quote] I watched it again on Netflix recently, and while I appreciate that the film is built around the Kuleshov Effect, it's still a bore. I agree with Orson Welles, who said that once Hitchcock moved to color, he got lazy, and all of his color films were lit like television shows.

His comment is odd. He is certainly free to find the movies bad. The idea that they are lazy is silly. Many of them are quite ambitious. Whatever you think of Vertigo it isn’t lazy and doesn’t resemble any television program I have seen.

I find the modern obsession with "plot holes" maddening (especially when people use "plot hole" to mean "coincidence" or "not spelled out plot point"). You can do the same thing with other wonderful pieces, all the way back to OEDIPUS THE KING. To me such things matter in inverse proportion to the overall quality of the film otherwise -- look, feel, performances and above all fascinating and well-explored themes.

In my experience, there's often a "gotcha" quality to such things. If you weren't engaged by REAR WINDOW, fine. If the other elements I mentioned didn't draw you in, then yeah, you're more likely to detach and pick it apart. That's your right. But one could also argue that you're missing the forest for the trees -- again, when other elements are so strong.

Last thought -- I always liked REAR WINDOW just fine but didn't love it . . . until I saw it on a big screen. Then it clicked for me.

[quote] In my opinion, all of the major Hitchcock films that I know -- PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO -- have tremendous, ridiculous, insane plot holes that outweigh whatever virtues these movies may have.

They are not documentaries.

I think the husband in the newlywed couple can do better. Though the wife seems to have a high sex drive.

Like a dagger in my heart, OP. Love Rear Window.

R61, same here. Vertigo is a bore. The pairing of Kim Novak with Jimmy Stewart is bothersome (and to see it as well in Bell, Book, and Candle is really annoying). As much as I detest that hypocrite whore Grace Kelly, I enjoy Rear Window much more than Vertigo.

I think Notorious is better than both of them.

I also love Young and Innocent, aka A Shilling for Candles. Extremely goofy early Hitchcock and an entirely different sort of story. But silly and fun.

And the basic premise is far-fetched because wouldn't Thorwald (Raymond Burr) keep his blinds or shades drawn.

If I was trying to entice a 50-ish retired detective with a beautiful woman, as Elster does in Rear Vertigo, of course I would select a gorgeous young woman like Novak. And yes, people who aren't in the same age group do fall in love. They didn't plan to fall in love but it happened. Age-obsessed movie watchers make me crazy. If you look at contemporary reviews, it's never mentioned.

Stewart is the same age as Bradley Cooper is now. If they remade Vertigo with Cooper, would they put him with a 50 year old woman? I doubt it.

R70 and All:

OP here. I am currently on a Hitchcock bing before Netflix is pulling the movies.

I came off watching Psycho, which is AWESOME , and was a little disappointed by "Rear Window", which I saw for the first time. I realize that the movie has many qualities that become more apparent upon repeated watching. I wish I could see it on a big screen (Castro Theatre).

^Hitchcock binge

The best mix of skill and entertainment is The Birds. The ultimate MacGuffin.

OP my favorite is Shadow of a Doubt, followed by The Birds. I enjoy Hitchcock, never liked Vertigo.

I don’t like Jimmy Stewart as a general rule but this provided one of his greatest performances. If you disagree, consider for a moment how busily acting people like Clooney, or Pitt, or Damon would in the same role. Him silently reacting to life viewed out his window was beautiful.

One of the Hollywood issues of Vanity Fair had a shoot of Javier Bardem and Scarlett Johansson in the roles. Maybe. I think, maybe in the late 90s, Denzel Washington and Catherine Zeta-Jones would have been a good fit.

I saw Vertigo when CBS had a rare showing, back in the early 70s. I was a young teen, thought it was amazing, still do. Recently I watched a few Hitchcock movies when I was out of work for a week or so. I Confess, The Paradine Case, Torn Curtain, Shadow of a Doubt, Psycho, and North by Northwest. I really like I Confess (in spite of it being more or less suspenseless), I enjoy Paradine for some of the performances and the Hitchcock touches. Hated Torn Curtain even more than the last time I saw it. Shadow of a Doubt is disturbing, more than entertaining. One of the few Hitchcock movies where the main male character is evil, and the villain. Psycho is always absorbing, but I hate that backward fall down the stairs of Martin Balsam, as staged by Hitch. North by Northwest, I hadn't seen in years and thoroughly enjoyed.

There were two actors named Jimmy Stewart. There was the pre-war version and the post-war version. Ultimately, the post-war version is more interesting from a psychological perspective. His tour of duty had a deep effect on him, and it shows in his movies. His work in westerns is as interesting as his Hitchcock work—whether or not you enjoy the actual movies.

I love his westerns and his work in them.

Interesting how he and Cagney were usually referred to by the press and public as Jimmy while they were always billed as James.

Javier Bardem and Scarlett Johansson in Rear Window.

[quote]In my opinion, all of the major Hitchcock films that I know -- PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO -- have tremendous, ridiculous, insane plot holes that outweigh whatever virtues these movies may have.

[quote]They are not documentaries.

What the hell kind of argument is that? If a plot point in a script is so ridiculous that it takes you out of the movie, because all you can do is fixate on that plot point and try to make sense of it, then that's a tremendous flaw of the overall film. And Hitchock's movies are full of them.

[quote]I find the modern obsession with "plot holes" maddening (especially when people use "plot hole" to mean "coincidence" or "not spelled out plot point"). You can do the same thing with other wonderful pieces, all the way back to OEDIPUS THE KING. To me such things matter in inverse proportion to the overall quality of the film otherwise -- look, feel, performances and above all fascinating and well-explored themes.

No, a coincidence that strains credibility is NOT the same as a plot hole, because a striking coincidence CAN happen, whereas many of the huge plot holes in Hitchcock movies are ruinous. And P.S., the last places where plot holes should be forgivable are in thickly plotted movies like Hitchcock's, whereas similar plot holes would make much less difference in a light romantic comedy.

R83 Have you been diagnosed with OCD?

R85, it's not a sign of OCD when someone insists that mystery and suspense movies have plot points that make sense, rather than including scenes and incidents that would never and could never in a million years happen in real life.

Rear Window is my favorite Hitchcock and at some periods my favorite movie of all time. It completely engulfs me when I watch it - pure cinema. I saw it on TV as a little kid and decided then and there that I wanted to move to New York and that I wanted to work in something having to do with the movies and I did both things eventually. The glamour of Grace, the seediness of all the voyeurism and the stories in every apartment across the way. It encapsulates this city perfectly, and the act of watching movies perfectly too. And yeah like a poster said above - seeing it on a big screen is revelatory. That wall of windows needs to be enormous, life-size, to be really appreciated.

R87 Agree with you 100%!

On the flip side, I think Vertigo is incredibly overrated. I found it slow, dull, and ridiculous in its plot twists.

I did appreciate the cinematography, but that's about it.

Rear Window really needs to be seen on the big screen. I saw it at a screening at the Castro Theater in SF years ago, and I was blown away, from the incredible view of all the apartments and goings on outside of Jimmy Stewart's window to the breathtaking look of Grace Kelly when she first appears on screen and kisses a sleeping Jimmy.

After it had been withheld for years, Rear Window was re-relased in theaters (by Universal--they originally took off the Paramount logo and substituted theirs). Follwed by Vertigo, The Trouble With Harry, and a couple more. So that's when I saw RW--in a theater.

I think of parts of Vertigo as dreamlike and hypnotic, with a quality of timelessnes. The somtimes languid pace combined with the music and cinematography draws me in. If you think it's "slow", I guess this is not the movie for you. I don't see how else it could have been done to create the intended mood.

The only thing I don’t like about “Rear Window” is how there is still, by the end, very little evidence of anything. They don’t find anything in the garden, they only find the wedding ring. They’re pretty much stymied at every turn until Burr comes into the apartment.

R92 But remember? They got a confession from Burr.

Yeah she is in the East River….

It's not up to Jeff, LIsa and Stella to find the evidence.

And Thorwald confesses to the police.

Hitchcock preferred a slow, deliberate pacing that many in today's audiences cannot tolerate. They are used to fast-paced action. With Hitch the suspense comes from the audience thinking and figuring things out. The code of the day prevented him from showing much in the way of gore, violence, or sex, so Hitch became a master of subtle suggestion, and that means also giving the audience time to contemplate things before moving on too quickly.

Another Hitchcock quality that many seem to miss today is his incredible sense of humor. It tended to be dark, and sometimes macabre. No matter how serious the film, Hitch always injected touches humor throughout. Both The Trouble With Harry and Family Plot could be considered out-and-out comedies.

Looking at how his films are rated on Rotten Tomatoes, Hitchcock's place as a master of cinema is pretty damn solid.

True R97, I loved the bald soldier boyfriend of Miss Torso.

R78 Jimmy Stewart's best performance may very well be in Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder 1959. He was named Best Actor by the New York Film Critics Circle and received his final Oscar nomination for the film and the film itself is one of the finest courtroom dramas ever and still relevant today.

Stewart was so consistently good it's hard to name a best performance. Though I think there were a handful of bad performances.)

[quote]I taught the film to high school seniors at an all-boys private school

Are they hiring?

R92, back then they didn’t have all of the forensic tools we have now. Since there were no surveillance cameras then, for example, it really would have been possible for Burr to cut up his wife’s body, package it up, and take it out of the apartment. A lot of murder mysteries of that era (Agatha Christie’s, for example) end with a suspect being compelled in some way to confess. It was the only way to be sure.

Thoughts on the Christopher Reeve remake from the 90s? Does Daryl Hannah make you say Grace Kelly who?

The remake suffered from Christopher Reeve's suffering. It was amazing that he was able to make a new film, but you couldn't ever get over the fact that it was him, and think about all he'd been through.

r73

[quote]as Elster does in Rear Vertigo

Myself, I've always preferred [italic]The Psycho Vanishes[/italic] and [italic]To Catch a Wrong Man[/italic].

[quote]And WHY bury her head in the first place?

So the body couldn't be identified. This was the days before DNA. Bodies in the river almost always wash ashore. Without a head, they wouldn't know who it was.

[quote]R50 What are some of those so-called plot holes, by the way?

Lisa Fremont being desperate to marry a man who’s apparently her grandfather?

Stewart was 21 years older than Kelly.

If you don't want to and can't really see a Hitchcock movie, don't blame the movie because you saw it anyway.

Personal taste differs from artistic accomplishment. But even though I don't like westerns or Clint Eastwood, I'm still amazed at what he accomplished with "Unforgiven."

As for the "plot" comment, the OP shows her cards that she's trolling.

[quote]If a plot point in a script is so ridiculous that it takes you out of the movie, because all you can do is fixate on that plot point and try to make sense of it, then that's a tremendous flaw of the overall film. And Hitchock's movies are full of them.

I think you may want to stay away from literature and cinema more broadly. It's going to be traumatic for you.

I’m a Hitchcock fan, but I always thought this one and the man who knew too much from the 50s were too talky

[quote]R88 On the flip side, I think Vertigo is incredibly overrated. I found it slow, dull, and ridiculous in its plot twists.

VERTIGO is a mood. The story is kind of jumbled, but the emotional center of the story, the romantic yearning for what cannot be had, is deeper and more compelling than what’s in most of Hitchcock’s films. Maybe because it struck so close to his (fat, disappointed) heart.

I don't get your point, R110. Of course, there are lots of novels, movies, etc. with plot points that strain credulity beyond the breaking point, but there are also a great many that do not, and I will be happy to stick with the latter.

Family Plot remains under-rated.

A sly comedic film full if actors not known for comedy yet who all seem to be on the same page as far as the tone of the film. This is all Hitchcock. It's always worth watching, imo.

I like Family Plot

Nope love it. Decided to watch it right now. Thanks!

Kinda risque at the time for Miss Torso to take her top off even if she had her back to the camera.

Stating the obvious but we the audience are watching Jimmy Stewart, who's watching these dramas unfold within the window frames, played out like silent movies, so it's as if he's watching several movie screens as pantomines play out on them.

Also Hitchcock was all about subjective cutting--showing someone looking at something, then cutting back to the reaction. This movie is one of the best examples of that. Most directors didn't direct in that style, but a lot of people don't even notice it.

I think of parts of Vertigo as dreamlike and hypnotic... I don't see how else it could have been done to create the intended mood.

For me the movie dies as soon as Kim Novak speaks.

Spot on AF, R17.

My favorite thing about the movie is that you have this guy who's a journalistic photographer who likes to get in harm's way. And he's laid up because he was photographing an auto race and got onto the track and got his leg broken. These days a guy with that kind of job would probably make a fortune, but he just lives in a regular courtyard apartment, apparently in Greenwich Village. He has a girlfriend who's in the fashion world, and she wants him to settle down and become a regular, safe photographer. In the course of the proceedings, this chick who he thinks is a beautiful girl but to into shallow stuff, and who could never have the fortitude to stand his lifestyle, proves to him she has amazing guts. And does he think, "Now she's not feminine." Nope, he loves her even more.

To R108-and Jimmy Stewart looked 21 years older than Grace Kelly

Thelma Ritter looked younger than Jimmy. Nevertheless, I loved the movie Rear Window. Grace& Thelma stole the movie.

The top 10 box office stars of 1954, according to Quigley's Top Ten Box-Office Champions, were:

1. John Wayne

2. Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis

3. Gary Cooper

4. James Stewart

5. Marilyn Monroe

6. Alan Ladd

7. William Holden

8. Bing Crosby

9. Jane Wyman

10. Marlon Brando

"Rope" was an offbeat type of Hitchcock film with the murder taking place in the first minute or so, unseen by viewer, outside a shuttered window. Very clinical and matter-of-fact.

Then it's hide-the-body time when the murderous (gay) college buddies give a cocktail party---even inviting the victim's parents! The film has a slow, meandering tone to it, and stays in the same room where the murder happened. So Hitchcock in tone--droll but macabre.

I liked it as much as I liked "Rear Window" but for different reasons. Anyone else ever see it?

And yes, Jimmy Stewart was much too old for Kelly in RW---and such a cranky bore to boot.

I don't want to call people stupid, but Stewart's character was in a full leg cast stuck in his apartment in a heat wave, when he was a very active, adventurous man. If he wasn't cranky, it would make no sense.

Rope has no cuts. It plays out mostly in real time, in 9-minute takes.

If you like that approach, it’s used in BIRDMAN (2014), too.

R124 - the Rope murder is shown.

That sped up scene where James is attacked is like the Keystone Cops.

Hitchcock also used it (partly) in Under Capricorn. There was a very elaborate set up at a dinner party, where they had to pull a long table apart, and have people move out of the way, so that the camera could pull in on Ingrid Bergman without a cut. If any mistakes were made they had to do it over from the very beginning. It unnerved Bergman a lot and--uncharacteristically--she flipped out and had a meltdown, which I think Hitch dealt with by leaving.

Watching the movie, it goes along pretty well until that scene, then it slows down and loses steam as Hitchcock takes the camera upstairs and does all these things without a cut that are impressive, but take you out of the story.

All the episodes of Adolescence are in one take. Four one-hour episodes. Great show.

R127 --okay, thanks for the correction. I was remembering only hearing a scream outside the window.

Don’t you on,y see the absolute last moment of the murder in Rope, as the strangled guy slumps in their arms? It’s so over the top homoerotic, basically an orgasm — Hitch being such a perv is what’s made his movies last

I love it but I love Rebecca more. and North by Nothwest is possibly my my favorite movie.

Seen ROPE a few times. Wasn't there the novelty of making it seem continuous?

I can find enjoyment in any Hitchcock film except for Torn Curtain.

Topaz is pretty dire too except for that one shot of the killed lady's spreading dress.

1-No mentioned so far about Kelly's fabulous green suit, which kind of resembles the one Tippi Hedren wore in The Birds.

2-Any film where Thelma Ritter disappears three-quarters of the way through loses something. Same with All About Eve.

3-How do these beautiful, intelligent women end up with old guys? Must be some wish fulfillment on the part of the someone involved with the film. In Sabrina, twenty-something Audrey Hepburn ends up with old, ugly, cranky Humphrey Bogart. At least with Cary Grant he was still attractive, even though his costars were young enough to be his daughters.

The original short story “It Had To Be Murder”, written by Cornell Woolrich and published by Detective magazine in 1942, is (unsurprisingly) different in significant ways to Hitchcock’s film. Hitchcock was a fan of Woolrich’s writing.

Jeff is confined to his apartment with a broken leg, looking out the back windows. But he isn’t a photojournalist.

The amount of side characters seen in other rear windows in the courtyard is smaller in the original story. There are only a few and they are hardly mentioned.

There is no girlfriend character. At all.

There is no female nurse character either. Jeff has a “caretaker” who is male and black, named Sal.

Sal gets wrapped up in Jeff’s theories about Thorwall murdering his wife, and helps Jeff. At one point Jeff convinces Sal to go into Thorwall’s apartment, but only with the intention of making it look like someone has gone through his things.

He interacts with Detective Boyle quite a bit, who is different than Jeff’s army buddy in the film

There was an interesting interview with Woolrich I read once but can’t find now where he says his inspiration for writing the story came from a similar situation. He had a writing room in his apartment that looked out into a back courtyard. There were two little girls he would see in the same window from time to time who would sometimes catch his attention and act silly, and other times he saw glimpses of the girls interacting with their family where they would be more serious. Somehow the story was born from this.

I always thought it was on the boring side.

R122. But he couldn't have been her grandfather by any stretch.

Cornell Woolrich was gay, in a different era. He was kind of a mess but had his successes in life.

[quote]I always thought it was on the boring side.

If you're easily bored, this is the kind of movie that will probably bore you.

I know this is a discussion of Rear Window (which I also love and have seen on the big screen more than once) my personal favorite is Lifeboat. So much happening in that little skiff, a real microcosm of the time, and an incisive look at human nature under pressure. With a few well-placed laughs, of course.

The rear projection in Lifeboat is some of the best I've ever seen. If it wasn't good the illusion would have been ruined. Really another Hitchcock "experiment" hardly ever mentioned, because almost all of it was filmed in the studio.

I liked “Frenzy” but, as a friend of mine said, it feel like there’s a whole middle part missing. Not that there are plot holes but it just seems like there should be more.

The trailer is quite good.

I'm sure there are things about Rear Window that have been copied many times by now (it has been remade, but I mean, not so much the exact premise, but there have been many things stolen or "inspired by" many Hitchcock films.) At the time, there was nothing like this movie, other than maybe The Window (1949). Hitchcock also pushed the bounds of Hollywood self-censorship quite a bit. There weren't a lot of "A" movies as disturbing as Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, Psycho, The Birds, etc.

And, sadly, R144 there are very few if any of this disturbing quality today. The last one I can name was “Parasite”

“Everything, Everywhere…. “ was just crap.

North by Northwest was the Oppenheimer of Hitchcock movies. It had all the ingredients to impress but it left me cold.

My favourite pure Hitchcock entertainment is The Birds.

I've always loved North by Northwest.

Since this is turning into a general Hitchcock thread: I'm a great admirer of Hitchcock and have seen all of his films multiple times . . . but I am flummoxed as to why people frequently mention [italic]Shadow of a Doubt[/italic] as one of his very best, as I find it OK but a bit of a bore. Am I the only who who thinks [italic]Shadow of a Doubt[/italic] is not a great movie? Could those who really like it please specify why they find it outstanding [italic]relative to other Hitchcock films[/italic] (in other words, with statements like, "It's better than [italic]Strangers on a Train[/italic] because . . . ", "It has better [italic]xyz[/italic] than [italic]Stage Fright[/italic]," and so on)?

Well, it was Hitchcock's favorite among his films...

I have to laugh when Thelma says I'm not an educated woman.

r149 Then we're taking its merit on trust rather than observation and experience?

R148 and others, some of the movies Hitch directed that are considered "great" receive that stamp because at the time they were shot and released, they were somehow "subversive" or "pushed boundaries" or were an attempt at something no one else had tried or achieved. Yes, there were other directors who pushed boundaries (Orson Welles for example), but no one else had the output of Hitchcock.

Shadow of a Doubt makes safe and sound suburbia dangerous (the favorite and beloved uncle tries to murder his niece! More than once!). Teresa Wright was genius casting and she's terrific. Strangers on a Train with its undercurrent of homosexuality (for Bruno) and then that crazy sequence with the carousel. Lifeboat... one set piece. Rope - again, gay, gay, gay and the 9-minute sequences with fade outs and fade-ins. And on and on.

Personally, I love, love, love Foreign Correspondent. A terrific story line that is tight (the assassination and then chase!). Some good suspence, The ever-swoony Joel McCrea (playing thee upstanding American who has to learn that the U.S. should be part of WWII). And man, what a great sequence with the plane being fired upon, landing in the ocean, survivors and more! BTW - this movie was nominated for an Oscar for BEst Picture.

r152 Thanks. I agree on all points. I was just wondering if people were seeing in it something which I had overlooked. For the record, I'm a big fan of [italic]Stage Fright[/italic], largely for the very reason some people fault it: It pulls the rug out from under the (unwary) audience member.

No love for “Witness of the Prosecution” here? One of my favorites.

Isn't that a Billy Wilder movie based on an Agatha Christie play?

Oops

^^^I always thought Hitchcock directed "Witness for the Prosecution"^^^

Until I was corrected by my film-mad neighbors who corrupted me with their knowledge of films.

[quote]R152 Shadow of a Doubt makes safe and sound suburbia dangerous (the favorite and beloved uncle tries to murder his niece! More than once!)

Yes - underneath the picturesque, Whitman’s Sampler setting, it’s also a very straightforward thriller. Joseph Cotton is a serial killer… not just some schlubby neighbor who may have killed his wife during a heat wave.

He’s scary.

[italic]”You think you know something, don't you? You think you're the clever little girl who knows something. There's so much you don't know. So much. What do you know, really? You're just an ordinary little girl living in an ordinary little town. You wake up every morning of your life and you know perfectly well that there's nothing in the world to trouble you. You go through your ordinary little day, and at night you sleep your untroubled, ordinary little sleep filled with peaceful, stupid dreams. And I brought you nightmares! Or did I? Or was it a silly inexpert little lie? You live in a dream. You're a sleepwalker, blind. How do you know what the world is like? Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know if you rip the fronts off houses you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?”

R148, Shadow of a Doubt is not what people think of as typical Hitchcock. It doesn't have the cold glossy look, it's not full of dramatic stand-alone sequences. But like his other movies is about guilt and repressed sexual desire. Theresa Wright, the innocent girl, and her wicked uncle Charlie are somehow two halves of the same coin. They are bound together. She has always known that there is something wrong with him (she immediately notices that there is something off about the ring he gives her, for example). She struggles not to face the truth about him. After he is dead she vows never to reveal what she knows. Why? To me it's a subtle, haunting movie.

[quote]Am I the only one who thinks that “Rear Window” is not a great movie?

You may not be the only one, but it's not something to brag about,

I love Rear Window but North by Northwest is my favorite Hitchcock film.

Most movies have plot holes. But if you enjoy them you go along for the ride.

Hitchcock’s British films are quite good. “The Lady Vanishes”, “The 39 Steps”, and “The Man Who Knew Too Much” are all fantastic. The wife in the original “Too Much” is a much more interesting character than Doris Day’s 50s woman who gave up her career to be a wife in the remake.

Netflix is taking the film and many of the Hitchcock collection off its offerings on Aug 1.

[quote]I’m pretty disheartened to see that Netflix is removing the majority of its collection of Hitchcock movies on August 1. This includes “Psycho,” “The Birds, “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” and my personal favorite, “Rear Window.” This classic thriller has been a must-watch for more than 70 years, and its influence on the mystery genre is still felt to this very day.

[quote]The movie marked the second collaboration between James Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock, and sees Stewart play a photojournalist confined to his humid apartment after breaking his leg during an assignment. With little to do other than watch the world go by from his front window, he soon becomes convinced his neighbor has committed a terrible murder. The flick is a masterclass in slowly ratcheting tension, and it plays with perspective in some clever ways. After all, we only see what’s happening from Jeff’s limited vantage point.

[quote]Watch "Rear Window" on Netflix until August 1

[quote]R163 Most movies have plot holes.

It’s not a plot hole, really, but my pet peeve is scenes where someone has a big emotional confession or outburst or something… which is later revealed to just be a manipulation tactic. The other characters and the audience are fooled - but most real life people aren’t even good liars, let alone capable of giving Oscar caliber performances.

The scene below (SPOILER!) has Sean Penn flipping out on a sibling, and that pushes Michael Douglas down a certain avenue of the plot. When we later realize this was all a hoax perpetuated by Penn, it makes me think, “This probably wouldn’t work, as most people didn’t study acting with Sean Penn.”

[quote]I love Rear Window but North by Northwest is my favorite Hitchcock film.

"North by Northwest" has a lighter tone that makes it fun, and I certainly enjoy watching it, but it doesn't grab me the way other Hitchcock classics do.

R166, most people aren’t very good at detecting lies.

R166, The Game is a fun movie but you have to suspend a LOT of disbelief

I love it, too. And I think Deborah Kara Unger is great, very intriguing. I wish she got cast more.

You also get brief appearances by Carroll Baker and Linda Manz.