What movie are you watching?

[holt_bruce81]

What We Do in the Shadows is a really good flick. I'd recommend it if you're looking for a laugh. 

[Small Town Values]

The Birds (1963)

 

I finally got around to viewing it. What can I say...

- I love Hitchcock. He's made so many memorable films. 

- Listening in on the characters interactions, & conversations is always the highlight of a Hitchcock film.  

- Melanie Griffith's mother (Tippi Hedren) is a highly attractive woman. I don't share that opinion of Mel, or Dakota.  

-  Russo & Romero's "Night of the Living Dead (1968)" seems like a complete ripoff of "The Birds," only with zombies in the place of birds. 

... Also, I have one major gripe I can't get past.

With all those birds flocking to that little town, the whole place should've been covered in schit. 

Where was all the crap, the doo-doo, caca, poopie, excrement, faecal matter? ... The place should have been drowning in bird schit, but there wasn't a drop. Not very realistic if you ask me. 

 

All up, very good film.   

 

[Shockwave]

On 10/26/2017 at 5:20 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

It's a slow burn without much of a payoff.  If you didn't like the first 15 minutes, you won't like the rest.  I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed the short story/novella, and I mostly just enjoyed it because I thought Jane did really well. 

I still can't believe that was Thomas Jane. Barely even looked like him. But yea slow burn I was expecting some amazing twist at the end to make it payoff and it never came. Never really creeped me out or anything. Won't ever watch it again but it was ok.

[MacReady]

20 hours ago, Marc MacGyver said:

The Birds (1963)

I'll never understand why The Birds is one of Hitchcock's most famous/popular movies.  Tippi Hendren was his worst leading lady by a very significant amount.  The Birds was hokey and all around not very good. 

[devils1854]

Cursed

One of the more underrated Wes Craven movies. Not his best but pretty entertaining.

[Calvert28]

On 10/29/2017 at 10:29 AM, Marc MacGyver said:

The Birds (1963)

 

I finally got around to viewing it. What can I say...

- I love Hitchcock. He's made so many memorable films. 

- Listening in on the characters interactions, & conversations is always the highlight of a Hitchcock film.  

- Melanie Griffith's mother (Tippi Hedren) is a highly attractive woman. I don't share that opinion of Mel, or Dakota.  

-  Russo & Romero's "Night of the Living Dead (1968)" seems like a complete ripoff of "The Birds," only with zombies in the place of birds. 

... Also, I have one major gripe I can't get past.

With all those birds flocking to that little town, the whole place should've been covered in schit. 

Where was all the crap, the doo-doo, caca, poopie, excrement, faecal matter? ... The place should have been drowning in bird schit, but there wasn't a drop. Not very realistic if you ask me. 

 

All up, very good film.   

 

Yea she's hot. That all-natural beauty goes well in any generation. 

[KManX89]

The Strangers.

I wanted to watch a horror flick for Halloween. I didn't feel like I had the balls to give Dead Silence another watch (that movie freaked me out) and probably forgot a lot of this movie since I haven't seen it in ages, so I ultimately settled on this.

[Mox]

Keep Watching. Starts slow but picked up quite a bit. Really enjoyed the concept and would recommend.

[Small Town Values]

On 31/10/2017 at 12:30 AM, HorizontoZenith said:

I'll never understand why The Birds is one of Hitchcock's most famous/popular movies.  Tippi Hendren was his worst leading lady by a very significant amount.  The Birds was hokey and all around not very good. 

That's not surprising. She was working as a fashion model at that time, when Hitchcock spotted her in a commercial. To be cast as the female lead in only your second appearance in a feature film is a tough ask for anybody. Prior to The Birds she had only appeared in The Pretty girl (1950) as an uncredited extra.

 Also, being the worst, or least experienced, female lead in a Hitchcock film is by no means an indictment on the performance. In the entirety of leading ladies on film there have been far worse examples. 

As for the popularity of The Birds, I'd put it down to the film's simple concept, & Hitchcock's ability to create highly watchable / re-watchable movies.

You are simply taken on a ride with the characters as face the challenges of an unexplained phenomenon. The Birds may be one, if not the first, movie to explore that concept?       

And, if you like some semblance of plausibility, birds works better than zombies. 

- Do birds flock together in very large numbers? Yes.

- Do birds swoop & attack humans? Yes.

- Do birds attack in large numbers, & kill humans? No.

(2/3 ain't bad)

- Does the dead rise from the grave? No

(End of story)

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Marc MacGyver

[MacReady]

19 minutes ago, Marc MacGyver said:

 Do birds flock together in very large numbers? Yes.

- Do birds swoop & attack humans? Yes.

- Do birds attack in large numbers, & kill humans? No.

(2/3 ain't bad)

- Does the dead rise from the grave? No

(End of story)

Do birds leave an exact silhouette of a bird when they crash out of a window after gouging out a man's eye?  No. 

[Small Town Values]

@HorizontoZenith

Some more thoughts to add to The Birds discussion.

 

~ On special effects ~

Special effects will always date. Alien (1979) is one of my all-time favourite films, however the antiquated computer systems look comical by contemporary standards.

If measured against current expectations, The Birds is likely to disappoint in the effects department. But, if you allow for fifty-four years of technological development, it really doesn't come across as all that bad.      

Cinematic death scenes have always been more of an artistic expression, rather than scientifically factual. If you're honest, realism is almost never the strong suit of any genre outside of drama. 

 

~ Where The Birds success lies ~ 

Hitchcock & co - kept it simple, & didn't bother trying to explain the rather unrealistic concept.  

Delivering the story as an unexplained phenomenon, or phenomena was a wise decision. 

Throughout most of the film you are required to suspend critical thought, & simply experience the events somewhat vicariously through the characters as they unfold.

Upon arrival at the closing credits, this all changes. That's when the realisation sets in that no plausible explanation for these events has been given. Instead, it's left up to the audience to invent their own theory, one satisfactory of their intellectual standard. 

(Or like me, you can be happy to leave it unknown)

The Birds is also quite different, as it deviates from Hitchcock's traditional intricately woven masterworks. (Vertigo, Dial M for Murder, etc)          

 

 ~ Where The Birds rates amongst other Hitchcock films ~ (In my opinion)

As I've said before, I have a fondness for Hitchcock, but that doesn't mean I binge watch all of his films. Only the ones that interest me based on concept.

That's why it took me so long to watch The Birds, conceptually it doesn't jump out at you. 

I don't consider it to be in the class of Vertigo, Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, or Rebecca. But, I personally enjoy it more than Psycho.

(Side Note: The Hitchcock / Stewart collaborations deserve recognition. Possibly the best Director / Actor partnership I've seen)   

  

~ Quick note on a couple of other random things ~ 

 Night of the Living Dead (1968) -  Watching The Birds has really driven this film down in my estimation. The framework of the zombie classic is just too similar for my liking. 

 

Also... I have a love hate relationship with the concept of raising the dead, depending on genre.

- Hate it in Science-Fiction... Don't try to explain this garbage as a virus. 

- Tolerate it in Horror... Don't explain it, just leave it a mystery. 

- Fantasy is where it belongs... Necromancy. I'll buy that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MacReady]

Just now, Marc MacGyver said:

@HorizontoZenith

Some more thoughts to add to The Birds discussion.

Just to be clear, I never had a problem with The Birds and I think that it's a landmark achievement in the horror/thriller genre.  I'm just saying I don't understand why it seems to be neck and neck with Psycho as a movie synonymous with Hitchcock.  It had none of the basic Hitchcock conventions and calling cards.  Neither did Psycho for that matter.  The Birds and Psycho were both female-led movies while the majority of his others were male-led.  There was no MacGuffin (that I can recall), there was no man on the run, mistaken identity, murder and the reasoning for murder... It just doesn't scream Hitchcock like a Hitchcock movie does.  The only reason I dislike The Birds is because of that goofy AF window scene (I watched The Birds the first time when I was 8 and thought that was goofy even then) and Tipp Hedren.  I'll always wonder what Hitchcock could have done with so many movies if Grace Kelly didn't go and marry a prince. 

[Small Town Values]

9 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Just to be clear, I never had a problem with The Birds and I think that it's a landmark achievement in the horror/thriller genre.  I'm just saying I don't understand why it seems to be neck and neck with Psycho as a movie synonymous with Hitchcock.  It had none of the basic Hitchcock conventions and calling cards.  Neither did Psycho for that matter.  The Birds and Psycho were both female-led movies while the majority of his others were male-led.  There was no MacGuffin (that I can recall), there was no man on the run, mistaken identity, murder and the reasoning for murder... It just doesn't scream Hitchcock like a Hitchcock movie does.  The only reason I dislike The Birds is because of that goofy AF window scene (I watched The Birds the first time when I was 8 and thought that was goofy even then) and Tipp Hedren.  I'll always wonder what Hitchcock could have done with so many movies if Grace Kelly didn't go and marry a prince. 

No, I get that. We like what we like - after all... I intended to post a long winded response that included what I wrote above the other day, but felt lazy. So, there it is. 

From what I've seen Psycho is held in higher esteem. But, you will always find those who prefer The Birds for example - over it. (Like me)

Also, the film/TV industry always blow their own trumpet. Groundbreaking moments, & landmark events in film/television are often more hype than substance. 

Using an unexplained event to deliver a concept that is unrealistic, bordering on idiotic, isn't something that can be reused often.

Cloverfield (2008) attempted a modern spin on it with some success, using a similar formula but with updated technology / communication methods. 

I feel you would have to get pretty creative to make a movie work that follows the same methodology, as it's close to redundant now.  

Edited November 4, 2017 by Marc MacGyver

[THE DUKE]

22 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Just to be clear, I never had a problem with The Birds and I think that it's a landmark achievement in the horror/thriller genre.  I'm just saying I don't understand why it seems to be neck and neck with Psycho as a movie synonymous with Hitchcock.

Honestly, when I think Hitchcock, I think either Rear Window or North by Northwest.

[Small Town Values]

8 hours ago, THE DUKE said:

Honestly, when I think Hitchcock, I think either Rear Window or North by Northwest.

There are many to choose from. Psycho understandable has a cult following, coupled with the iconic shower scene, & accompanying music.

But, I agree with you, Rear Window is my standout.