Anyone have a Favourite Hitchcock Movie?
 

I love classic movies, especially Alfred Hitchcock movies.
Does anyone out there have a favourite Hitchcock movie?

I'm definetly going to say the Birds, with Pyscho being a close second.

Oh Yeah!

I'm gonna go with:

Rear Window
Birds
Psycho

(In that order)

Birds
Rope
Psycho

My absolute favorite Hitchcock movie also happens to be Hitchcock's favorite Hitchcock movie:

Shadow of a Doubt.

Others that I thought were great all happen to rhyme with one another:
Rear Window
Vertigo
Psycho

Hmm...fave Hitchcock?

Psycho
The Birds
Rebecca
North by Northwest

Nobody still gets scared by these movies, right? I mean, historical relevance aside (many of his films changed the way we looked at movies and irrefutably shaped the horror genre), these films come off as pretty dated nowadays. I'm not alone here, right?

I couldn't disagree more.

Hitchcock was a master at SUSPENSE, not B horror movies. Classics don't age.

And it entirely depends on what you mean by "scared." There's fun-house type teen slasher movie, the gross-out HOLY **** that guy is SAWING HIS DAMN LEG OFF shock... but even that can get old. The kind of truly deranged psychotic horror that blossomed in the seventies I think owes a lot to Hitchcock. He had a lot of guts as a director in his time, exploring elements that, because they were so rooted in reality, felt all the sicker. He meant to expose the underbelly of society in his films, give us all an unsettled feeling in our stomachs that our pure, peaceful world we cherish so much is in fact plagued by many sinister diseases, and wolves in sheep's clothing. Incest, murder for pleasure, obsession... His movies touch on something deeper, and ultimately more damaging -- that the people we want to trust, the world we want to believe in, might be plotting to murder us in our sleep.

Of course, if you can't stand stuff that doesn't reek of your own era, then... sure, why not? It's old and therefore has no merit.

Rebecca and North By Northwest are both suspense/mystery films. Neither of them are scary at all. Most of Hitchcock's films were like that.

Several of his films were based on actual events (IE The Birds and Rope)

They still scare me, somewhat.

Well that's what I said. His films were revolutionary for the time period, because no one had ever seen anything like them before. Their impact can't help but shrink a bit after forty years of continuing development of the genre, don't you think?

And don't tell me he was above using cheap shock tactics in his films; Psycho is full of them. The final "shocking" reveal at the end of the film (of the mother's skeleton) comes to mind -- as if that moment wasn't entirely predictable. Frightening and unprecedented during its release, maybe, but it comes off as laughably executed nowadays. I've seen better cheese scares in William Castle flicks, to tell you the truth.

Frenzy, very realistic, blends everyday life in with a media craze about a local murderer, highly suspensful scenes accompanied mostly by long silence rather than overdrammatic background music and has a few comedic touches as well; the catch, very few likeable characters, most are antagonists.

Hm... lemme put it this way. I don't watch Hitchcock's movies for shock value. I watch them because they're art -- the things I'm talking about are his ability to hold the tension and suspense, the timing, the camera angles, the mood... this stuff was made back when censorship put a restriction on directors. In a way, many argue that this forced directors to be more clever with how they filmed.

I didn't say that he was above it. I'm saying that that's not the reason why so many of his films stand the test of time. I'm saying don't compare Hitchcock films like Vertigo and Shadow of a Doubt to "attack of the fifty foot woman" or "The Wasp Woman."

And when (real) film critics praise Psycho, it's not because people get stabbed or we see a mother's skeleton in the basement. That's not why it's "scary." And sometimes even good movies are predictable. What matters is the how.

Though... I see you're looking for completely different things when you watch movies. You realize there's no way in hell we're going to convince each other that the other person is right in his argument.

My conclusion exactly. Our different opinions on the subject originate, I guess, in our perception of the media. I realized this when you referred to Hitchcock's films as "works of art"; that's an entirely different way of viewing and appreciating a horror film than what I'm used to. I view films as distinct experiences, often visceral, things that evoke emotions, reactions, many of which we aren't completely aware. To my understanding, that's the basic concept behind the horror genre -- sensory depictions that are meant to illicit primal feelings and reactions.

So, basically, it's all about the mindset. I see you, like one of my college teachers who fancies himself a movie buff, watch a movie firmly grounded in the reality that you're watching a movie; you're looking for "art." But in the realm of horror movies, isn't this missing the point somewhat? If you're looking and appreciating the film as just that -- a film -- then isn't the film failing to engage you on some level?

Psycho is my all time favorite, followed by Rear Window, the Man Who Knew Too Much, and The Birds.

I do watch films to be entertained -- thing is I don't judge every movie by the same standards. A Hitchcock movie isn't the same as a National Lampoon movie -- sometimes movies are meant to be a little complex, sometimes they're meant to be on the surface, crude. Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Superbad, Runaway Brain -- these films have different aims. I don't appreciate them all for the exact same reasons. They do different things. So what if Hitchcock doesn't do what modern Horror does most abundantly? His movies are (for the most part) still intriguing and still have a lot to offer. Good stories that are told well don't get old.

I guess it was miscommunication on my part to make it seem like I only watch Hitchcock for its artistic value. To clarify, I find Hitchcock films to be both artistic as well as highly entertaining.

Ingmar Bergman's is a fine example of a director whose films are "artistic" but not entertaining. His films are interesting, but not "enjoyable." Oskar Fishinger would be another example... he didn't tell engaging stories through his films, he just did experimented a lot with visual music. (Though I can personally enjoy his films because I react to well-animated abstract objects the way a lot of people react to a striptease.)

I love Hitchcock films. I own a whole bunch of them. You don't get film stars better than Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant either.

North by Northwest is my all-time favourite film. Sure it's very long but it doesn't drag like EVERY recent film over the two hour mark does. Got to love it.

What I also like is how you actually care about what happens to the characters. Which is a key thing that a lot of mystery/thriller/suspense films miss nowadays.

I forgot to mention my favourite - Rear Window.