This was fucking awful. If this was considered one of the best

The ending sucked but that's it.

k

>>82222623
hey blond bitch, wanna feel my suspense? I'll let you be in my next movie.

>>82222623
The first half is literally supposed to be kind of awful and therefore it's actually good. The movie is kind of intended to be seen without knowing anything about it. So it seems like some normal mediocre romantic comedy or whatever and then bam gruesome apocalypse.

>>82222623

>things that were groundbreaking 70 years ago are now no longer as original or up to the current standards

kys

File: images (47).jpg (20KB, 344x427px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 344x427px

>>82223846

>>82223733
>seen without knowing anything about it
birds is also slang for women

>>82222623
The only decent thing about it, given the modern era's effects and expectations, is that the main actress wasn't really acting for a few scenes and you can get a sense of real terror that Hitchcock forced out of her. The guy was an asshole to her on set.

And then the perv recast her in Marine and ruined that because the only thing she was good at was being abused by birds, not Scots.

>>82223733
I can see this being true to a point, but even back then they had trailers and hyped up the thriller and terror aspects you'd come to expect. The idea of ruining a movie in the trailer has been a thing in Hollywood for decades.

>>82224554
Right but they could have taken it out if his hands. Directors don't control the trailers usually. Maybe the producers knew what he wanted but just said haha cute but no.

>>82224655
Considering Hitchcock, that's unlikely. Both because he was pretty controlling in nature, rightly so given his consistent money-making, and also the fact he was the master of suspense so you knew the thing was a thriller just by who directed it.

The fun was finding out how it happened. Which was alright, but this film really dated itself and had some hammy acting that didn't help.

>>82224854
True but I still think the sheer amount of time spent on that portion of the film is suspicious. I'm convinced he was up to something and I thinkbthats the only possibility. I can imagine him thinking it worthwhile if only even a single person was fooled.

>>82224854
Name 3 English language movies before 1963 that did not have any hammy acting.

>>82225033
He wanted to fuck Tippi. He had a plot that would make people like her, with a range of acting opportunities, and in turn maybe she'd put out for him after giving her a big break that could make her a star. It's less important in the actual suspense of the film, and more just him wanting to have sex with some blonde he saw.

The real magic comes near the end when he realized she's never putting out and started acting vindictive which got her to show real terror. That's what makes the last act something worth watching.

>>82222623
Its lesser Hitchcock. If you make nearly 60 films in your career, a few will be lesser.

Hitchcock was always shit.

>>82225182
Evan Hunter began working on the screenplay in September 1961.[9] He and Hitchcock developed the story, suggesting foundations such as the townspeople having a guilty secret to hide, and the birds an instrument of punishment.[10] He suggested that the film begin using some elements borrowed from the screwball comedy genre then have it evolve into "stark terror".[11][12][13] This appealed to Hitchcock, according to the writer, because it conformed to his love of suspense: the title and the publicity would have already informed the audience that birds attack, but they do not know when. The initial humor followed by horror would turn the suspense into shock.[10]

Hitchcock solicited comments from several people regarding the first draft of Hunter's screenplay. Consolidating their criticisms, Hitchcock wrote to Hunter, suggesting that the script (particularly the first part) was too long, contained insufficient characterization in the two leads, and that some scenes lacked drama and audience interest.[14]

>>82225431
You should feel bad copying wikipedia. Didn't your teachers ever tell you about how to use it properly?

Also, not sure what point you're trying to make there. Not really denying my argument, but giving some more substance to what's been said in the thread already.

>>82225621
I'm directly contradicting your assertion that he did that for an actress. I won't even dignify your specific claim. Not only is none of that true but Hitchcock wasn't even the one who added that element to the film and was even in some ways opposed to it. I will concede that fooling people was not their goal but I still insist that was a possibility that certainly would have been considered and welcomed. It seems very fair to assume that the goal was to literally make people forget. Their goal was to make people actually say oh shit I forgot I wasn't watching a screwball comedy.