...is moot if you have only watched it once. This is one of those films you need to watch multiple times in order to get the whole effect. There is a reason this film was regarded as a flop by when it first came out, only to be recognized as one of the greatest films of all time decades later.
shareI've seen it many times. It's a great movie. I do have to say that I wish Hitchcock had picked another actress to play the Kim Novak part. She wasn't the really good actress the film deserved.
I loved the story, the direction, James Stewart and Barbara Bel Geddes were terrific.
I've seen this movie several times and I still don't like it.
I'm sure I was much too hasty in having a negative opinion the first time I saw it. That time I came away with a negative view of it because of the casting. I thought Jimmy Stewart looked like Kim Novak's father. Of course the older man/younger woman pairing is normal for Hollywood films. But this pairing left me cold.
I tried watching it again but I still saw no chemistry between the two leads.
I have many books about Alfred Hitchcock and his work. He is my favorite director. Everything written about Vertigo is interesting. I have one book that is entirely devoted to the making of the film and it's fascinating. After reading it I decided to give the film another try. But I just don't like it. I can barely get through half of it before turning it off.
There are just some films which are excellent, superbly made classics but don't appeal to some folks.
Fair enough. You gave the film the respect it deserved and it turned out it just wasn't your thing. Not everyone will admit it but every film lover has that one movie that is considered a classic that they just don't like.
shareI've only seen it twice and I'm a big Hitchcock fan too, but for me a lot of what it comes down to is I don't really like the leads. Novak and Stewart, here, especially together, do nothing for me. I'm not riveted. So I can't watch them fall in love because I don't buy it and it doesn't give me that voyeuristic feeling I get in his best movies.
I love Stewart in Rear Window though, but in Rear Window I think he's playing more to type and it works.
I haven't sworn it off though. I came to appreciate The Birds much more after reading the BFI book by Paglia. I'll check out Barr's Vertigo. It's disappointing. The first time I saw Vertigo I gave it a 10/10, and the second time I have it a generous 8.
"There are just some films which are excellent, superbly made classics but don't appeal to some folks."
Dude, that is exactly how I feel about "The Birds"! (And the officially great "Godfather" films.)
LOVE "Vertigo", one of my all-time faves. It's the one that hits me at an emotional level, and face it, that's why a person loves one film and not another. Technical brilliance, innovation, complexity, and critical praise can be appreciated, but love happens at a purely emotional level.
[deleted]
I admit I didn't like Vertigo the first time I saw it. It was so unlike Hitchcock's other films. I just didn't get it. Where's the suspense?? That's what we expect of Hitchcock! Scotty follows Madeleine, then he follows her ghost, retracing all the places she had gone. I thought it was boring: it's not for adrenalin junkies, that's for sure. But I've come to love the film. It deals with romantic fixation, obsession and the sad willingness of a female to be molded into a feminine ideal... to satisfy a man. The plight of the modern woman?
I cringe now whenever I hear Scotty talking Judy into dressing the way he wants her to. "It can't matter to you."
I will say this though: Kim Noavk's makeup, esp. as Judy is way over the top and ugly. Those eyebrows are capable of inducing nightmares.
Yes, and she Cas a cake-y face that makes me think she broke out during filming. I guess for some it adds to her strange allure but for me it's a little 'the emperor has no clothes.'
shareI've only seen it once and I can't stop thinking about it but I don't think I'll want to see it again because it was just so damn slow.
shareIf you see it again, during the boring bits (Scotty following Madeleine) concentrate on Hitchcock's technique: Is the camera stationary or moving, when does he make editing cuts, point of view shots, where are the characters placed within the frame, how does he employ music, how does he make use of San Francisco as a locale.
Or you could....open your mail and surf the Internet...
that same thing was suggested by a critic in a review i read on this. notice the line "then what will i live on, my oil wells in texas" considering the role one of the actresses became known for. i had forgotten the way the movie ended as i saw it again last night, and it strikes me once again as a rather abrupt ending, this movie is quite remarkable just the vision, also the score, the atmospheric strange colours and different camera work, just take that opening, really brings to mind what you hear about hitchcock. the placing of the "fire escape" sign looked rather funny how it was hanging in the apartment building hallway, the way it looks gives you the impression as if there is a fire there every now and then.
🌉
before sunrise,
creates weather to come with her might,
shes built blessed from the ground,
movin like a maple leaf breeze around,
dress mould around her bosom my jaw drop down,
heart jump high model replica for womankind,
as surroundings fade,
in her light i stay.
I agree that this is a film that pays off when you watch it over again. All the clues planted along the way now make sense, and the story is fascinating enough to keep you watching a 2nd or 3rd time.
shareI watched it a year ago and it was so confusing, so I watched it again a few months ago and still didn't get it. Typical Hitchcock. Maybe I need to watch it again?
share
For a long time, this was my favorite movie. It's intensely romantic. It is very poignant to read about how it corresponded with the director's inner yearnings (in Donald Spoto's biography) as well as Robin Wood's analysis of the film.
I do hate Kim Novak's RIDICULOUS eyebrows in it (they really are distracting), and I've always thought it was stupid the way [spoiler]Judy puts on the necklace Gavin gave her in front of Scotty...like he wouldn't remember it???[/spoiler]
.
Loved the movie from the first time I saw it. It always kept me guessing and made me think which is what I loved about it. Out of my Hitchcock rankings this is what I have:
1. Psycho
2. Vertigo
3. The Birds - didn’t like it as a kid, love it as an adult
4. Dial M For Murder- liked it except for the final 20 minutes or so, just got kind of corny
5. Rear Window- I was expecting a twist and it turns out there was no twist, lots of build up for no payoff
6. North By Northwest- yeah I know many will disagree with me but I didn’t like it and didn’t find it thrilling at all