A British crime thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Charles Laughton and Maureen O'Hara.
A young woman goes to stay with her aunt, but finds there are criminals there, working for a rich man who lives nearby.
Michael Medved put this in his "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time" book, and for good reason. The video was all underexposed and the audio was full of loud background noise that chopped off abruptly for indoor scenes. This was to the point that it physically hurt to watch. I got a headache from it. The plot could not hold my attention and was not clearly presented. There were too many characters with not enough screen time to identify them. All of the rich guy's servants and all of the criminals were just a mess. The rich guy also had old guests who just sat at the table for a single scene. Dialogue was a major problem because of wave sounds. There was no whisper acting, but sometimes even shouting would not cut through the waves. There was also fast talking and in British dialect, making it nearly incoherent to this American. Point is, I don't think there was anything that was not a problem in this. When I go looking for images of 16:9 films, I get 4:3 chopdowns, so obviously I found tons of 16:9 chopdowns of this 4:3 movie. I rate it shit because it actually did hurt to watch. DO NOT WATCH!
An American mystery directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Teresa Wright and Joseph Cotten.
A long absent uncle goes to visit his relatives and is trailed by detectives who think he is a murderer. The family's eldest daughter tries to learn the truth of the situation.
Dull. An hour and 47 minutes seemed to pass slowly. I had to force myself to be interested in the plot because I was watching this for film class at school. Nothing of consequence happened until the last few minutes. Characters were stereotypical of the era: the dorks, businessmen, housewives... The whole thing was based mostly on dialogue that was not very interesting. I think that the actors did a professional job of playing their roles. Sets and costumes looked like an early sitcom. It seemed to be a prototype for I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver. The suburban town, men in suits, women in dresses, everything looking the same. Camera-work was not as bad as the rest. Hitchcock is known for shot variety and this delivered on that, if nothing else. The audio was actually mixed quite well. I could hear dialogue, music and sound effects at the correct levels, with nothing clipping into distortion. I would describe the style best as gentrified and stuck in first gear. This got 8/10 on IMDB, Roger Ebert gave it 4/4 and it has 100% tomatometer, 90% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 92.5% A grade average seems a little high for something so uninteresting. I rate this tolerable because it was just plain boring.
An American mystery thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring James Stewart.
A disabled photographer lives in a city tenament building that has a window facing other buildings full of apartments like his own. He watches the neighbors through this window and suspects that one of them has committed murder.
The camera-work was spectacular! We have panning and zooming working together to look into other windows and then the camera pulls back to reveal that it has been in the main character's window all along. He gets out his binoculars and the viewer sees his view through them, as well as his telephoto lens camera. The plot and characters were clearly communicated and easy to keep track of. The style was very much of the times, but still good. The pacing really speeds up toward the climax when multiple things are happenning in a short amount of time and we get lots of short and action-packed camera shots. I would recommend this to anyone who has an interest in photography (still or video). I rate it good.
A British thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
A man tries to help a counter-espionage agent prevent a group of spies from stealing information. The agent is killed and the man tries to stop the spies.
I couldn't understand the plot and looked it up on Wikipedia. The audio was muffled and almost incoherent. The video looked like total crap. Hence, the production value was quite low. Same for plot and characters. I gave up and turned it off after about 40 minutes. I rate it shit. DO NOT WATCH!
A psychological thriller by Alfred Hitchcock.A man with a fear of heights also has problems with people he knows falling to their deaths.The audio was good. The video was a little dark.check out: This film contains the famous "cross section of a tree" scene.It was an o.k. movie. Most of the plot happens at the end and much of the film doesn't make any sense until the end.
a mystery directed by alfred hitchcocka woman steals $40,000 from her boss and leaves town to meet her boyfriend. she stops at a strange little motel on the way.the video was in black and white. the audio was good.check out: the druggy secretary at marion's place of employment and the drunken client.I really think these old black and white horror movies are scarier than the newest high tech gore-fest. they rely on setting, mood, music, plot and other real elements of cinema to create fear. that takes skill. anyone with a computer can make giant monsters (nothing wrong with some of those), explosions and blood fountains. if you like REAL horror movies, this one is for you. I say it's great.
a horror directed by alfred hitchcocka woman goes to a small town to surprise a man that she is attracted to. this town is then beset by bird attacks.there were only 2 pieces of music in the whole movie. melanie plays the piano at mitch's house and the school children sing a song. otherwise, there is no music. the video was full screen and looked like a 1960s sitcom besides a lighting effect in the end (picture) that I thought looked like it was from the movie 300.this is a movie for film buffs who absolutely have to see everything. it is most noted (get it, music notes?) for lack of music. I thought it was pretty average.
