"The Lodger" Its one of his earliest films, (Mid 20's I think). A man takes lodgings with a family in London just as a series of grizzly murders occur in the area. Despite been a silent movie and nearly 80 years old it has quite a modern feel and you can see so many of the themes and influences which make up his later works.
Vertigo and Rope, along with most of the ones already listed. I've yet to find a real dud amongst his work, but I'm open to suggestions!
The concept of overrated and underrated is always an interesting one. I suppose you could argue that most critically acclaimed films are 'overrated' in general. Psycho is a great, great film and so for me it deserves its acclaim.
I haven't seen either Lifeboat or Torn Curtain, so I'll be sure to look out for them (Or should that be 'avoid them'?)
The second half of Psycho is why I like it so much! The film really kicks in halfway through, and every step after that just takes us further into the depths of the man's mind. There's not a weak link to be found. The acting, directing, score, it all fits together perfectly. It's a very good tool for showing mental illness, and it culminates in one of the creepiest inner monologues in history. I especially love the very final shot, with the skull superimposed.
Torn Curtain's not that bad. I haven't seen it for years but I remember enjoying it. Anyway, bad from Hitchcock is still usually 20 times better than a lot of other people's work.
it just so obvious!theres a psycho who has a weird thing about his mother.wow thats real profound.its very gimmicky too with that false beginning and the shower scene which is scary but has no point to it other than just to scare.ill grant that tony perkins is very good in it though.
I don't know man, gimmicky isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hitchcock was the master of gimmicks. He'd use any method he could to squeeze every drop out of the audience. He was one of the true manipulators of cinema, but when you take apart his films there's always real substance there. It's not a case of style without substance, more like applying the icing to a really tasty cake. So that when you really examine moments like the shower scene, you can see they serve more than just one purpose.
i find psycho lacks mystery but vertigo has lots of mystery.its so much to do with tone,putting you in the right mood etcmarnie has some of that too.film is illusion and vertigo puts you right there.psycho feels like a cheap gag by comparison
Originally posted by stylus p turntable: and the shower scene which is scary but has no point to it other than just to scare.
But that IS the point of it - to scare. The best part of that scene is not actually when she's being stabbed but when you see the bathroom door open through the shower curtain and the camera slowly closing in on it. Psycho is definately my favourite Hitchcock film. Also like, Rear Window Vertigo The Birds Rope Dial M For Murder
Definatley Physco- it's the only film that has ever made me properly jump! But also the birds and noone mentioned (I don't think) 'The Man Who Knew too much' which is a Hitchcock classic staring Doris Day.
it just so obvious!theres a psycho who has a weird thing about his mother.wow thats real profound.its very gimmicky too with that false beginning and the shower scene which is scary but has no point to it other than just to scare
The shower scene isn't even scary and it;s only point is not to scare- the whole way it's shot is amazing- it took 80 cameras to do that and it's just a work of art in my opinion.
Rebecca Notorious Strangers on a Train Shadow of Doubt I confess Rear Window Vertigo North By Northwest The Birds Psycho Marnie
Anyway, though many of his films are flawed and there some real duds, I believe Hitchcock to be the greatest MAINSTREAM film director of all time.
Because a mainsteam film must achieve a balance between artistic value/integrity and audience entertainment, or as Kubrick put it, "My aim is to have 100% artistic integrity and make as much money as Star Wars" no one has ever acheived this balancing act better than Alfred Hitchcock.
On top of this he was the most prolific director too. For evidence of this take a look at his profile on imdb.com and look at the dates and particularly his output in the fourteen years between 1951 and 1964
As for the Psycho thing I would say that first half of Psycho is the work of a cinematic master and is perhaps the most studied 45 minutes of western cinema ever but it does fall apart in the last half because of the sheer shock to the system of his murdering the antagonist and star of his film halfway through the story and shifting sympathies to the person who we believe to be the murderer's accomplice. It was a plotpoint only a genius like Hitchcock would or even could attempt and although there are still two more great sequences, the murder of Arboghast and the discovery of Mrs Bates, you are just left emotionally numbed by the incredible shock of Marion's murder in the shower. Of course this impact is lost or at least lessed to modern audiences, most of whom watch the film knowing exactly what happens in the shower scene going in, but at the time, it was an incredible brave and brilliant move and very shocking moment to experience
All the films already mentioned by other forummers. Apart from sappy melodramas like Under Capricorn I think most of Hitchcocks movies are classics - infact I bet he made more "good" movies than any other director.
Anyway, though many of his films are flawed and there some real duds, I believe Hitchcock to be the greatest MAINSTREAM film director of all time.
how about john ford,howard hawks or steven spielberg? also a film like vertigo only became known as a masterpiece several years after it was released.it was a flop when it was first shown. keeping commercialism and creativity in balance is tough and not one that hitchcock consistently pulled off.
I hadn't forgotten about John Ford, Howard Hawks or Steven Speilberg or John Huston or Martin Scorsese. They were/are all masters of the craft, but for me Hitchcock surpasses them all, and I love many of the films of those others, particularly John Huston but as mentioned none of them made MORE 'great' mainstream films than Alfred Hitchcock. He was just a brilliant film making (and marketing) genius in the truest sense of the word.
And can any of those directors claim to have a period of their careers to match this five years. Speilberg is lucky to make two films every five years
North by Northwest (1959) Vertigo (1958) The Wrong Man (1956) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) The Trouble with Harry (1955) To Catch a Thief (1955) Rear Window (1954) Dial M for Murder (1954)
