Alfred Hitchcock: The Masterpiece Collection: which movies live up to the title?

Large parts are like a low budget TV movie and the actors are really not top drawer. Up to the first murder it is absolutely classic Hitchcock, afterwards not so much barring a couple of frightening scenes.

 

well I bought the first one for a song...an amazing price!

 

One of the reasons Quentin Tarantino just wants to do ten movies, as he thinks after Psycho ..Alfred Hitchcock made stinkers, and he doesn’t want to follow a similar path.

 

a very cool Podcast with David Miniatures look at amazing detailed work!

​

 

By coincidence I am currently watching Rear Window, it's masterpiece for sure. Last time I saw it was a film festival in the early 2000's and I don't remember the comedy element, it really makes the film.

 

Love the technicolor. Grace Kelly’s a beaut alright.

 

Technicolor makes the film shine.

Onto North by Northwest now.

 

To Catch A Thief > sublime Color as well.

 

Modernist house at top of Mount Rushmore, color excels.

 

It was supposed to have a low-budget feel. Some great actors - Perkins won at Cannes for Goodbye Again, Leigh a Golden Globe for Psycho and Balsam an Oscar for A Thousand Clowns.

 

Foreign Correspondent was a good one , too.
Notorious, Dial M For Murder, Shadow of Doubt, Vertigo are some of my all time favorites period.

 

Which ones don't?

Topaz and Family Plot - and even the latter has its moments, though at times it looks like some Glen Larsen made-for-TV thing .

Some of the rest are more of a masterpiece than others, of course, so in the runner-up section, I'd place Marnie, Saboteur, The Trouble With Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Torn Curtain. Needless to say, there are some incredible masterpieces missing from the collection - Strangers on a Train, Blackmail, Suspicion, The Lady Vanishes, the 39 Steps...

 

Saboteur: Just about
Shadow Of A Doubt Sublime esp the marvellous JC
Rope: Failed experiment.
Rear Window: Yes
The Trouble With Harry: Dreadful
The Man Who Knew Too Much: Diabolical,
Vertigo: Absolutely. Unbelievable techniques from H. But not entirely his own. Check out Portrait of Jenny to see where H got his use of colours stylism
North By Northwest Perfect
Psycho: Absolutely
The Birds: Yes,
Marnie: Superb but terrible looking bluray.
Torn Curtain: Awful with Newman totally miscast.
Topaz: Absolutely not. Shocking movie
Frenzy: Excellent,
Family Plot: Absolutely not.

 

Most of this is dead on in my opinion but Marnie . Thought Hedren was a lousy actress and that was a weak story.
Only thing good was Connery.

 

I couldn't agree more. Watched the Blu Ray about a week ago and it was fabulous. I think it's his best.

 

The Birds

 

!!!!! I love "Frenzy!" It's so lovely... lovely... lovely.....

 

Gotta have, Strangers On A Train...one of my top favorites.

 

Surprised at 0 love for Marnie, which scores 82 percent on Tomatoes.

What I find particularly unique and rewarding about the film is how Connery "knows" as much or more than the audience (and carries more wisdom to boot). It's a sign of excellent writing when mystery/suspense is achievable without relying on people making dumb or hasty choices.

The film is also noteworthy for being cutting edge for its time.

I rate the film as excellent, and a notch below Hitchcock's best pictures.

 

I think it’s one of Hitch’s worst films using Freudian tropes as cover for a story that doesn’t work well.

 

Except that Hitchcock made more than 50 films and he made his masterpieces when he was in his 50-60’s as well. Hitch also made at least two films post Psycho that hold up exceptionally well. Other than that, it’s exactly like Tarantino.

 

There’s different periods for Hitchcock and he made masterpieces in each period. By the 50’s he was at his peak as a film director. Even those films I dislike, I have to admire. He also tackled a wide variety of styles in terms of filmmaking from the colorful Vertigo tothe noirish Strangers on a Train.

 

Hitchcock was going for that low budget aesthetic (it’s more in line with what you would see in theaters not on TV at the time). As to acting, well, that’s your opinion but Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, Martin Balsam were all terrific actors. As to it being frightening, Hitchcock didn’t intend for the rest of the film to have the same impact as the first murder—he knew he shocked the audience and that residual shock would carry over for his second set piece with Martin Balsam.

hitch was going for making the ultimate b movie and he did. The ending is still brilliant but the explanation was put there for the audience to help them understand what went before. It was necessary for many at the time who didn’t understand Freudian infused drama. At the time the use of Freudian analysis was novel and came from Joseph Stefan who had undergone psychoanalysis at the time.

the mistake you make is looking as a horror movie; it’s really not it’s a thriller masquerading as a horror film but uses and subverts the tropes of the time. While the ending with the psychiatrist helps,provide context for the audience, it also works as a form of ironic detachment given the violence and perversion we’ve witnessed reduced to logic and science.

 

Frenzy is both brilliant and subversive in its own way as it places black humor within the context of a serial killer.

 

I don't know what that means. True, it doesn't have thirty minutes of exposition like Dial M for Murder or Vertigo, but its pacing is one of its many strength.