A lot of people are saying that this movie is bad. I actually think it's pretty good! :) but maybe that just has to do with my crazy obsession with Julie Andrews haha :)
@strawberrycrazy1 No it shows what a high standard Hitchcock is held to. This movie is excellent, it only falls short when compared to Hitchcock's brilliant filmography.
This film was "Lackluster" at the most.Hitchcock didn't like the fact that he could not use his own star "Tippi Hedren" for this film,and from day 1 it was a bad movie.When you look back at other movies he made in the 60's like "the birds & marnie" you can see that this was not a classic like those were.
Absolute garbage. This movie fails on every level. Why Paul Newman, in his glorious heyday, would stoop to participate in this shit, is beyond me. And Julie Andrews was also misused here. Get over it, pals, your boy Hitchcock laid a lot of eggs. And this is indisputably one of them.
I agree. I've a lot of films from Alfred Hitchcock, from the "Lodger" (1927; his only silent film) to Torn Curtain, I have a total of 15 films. Needless to say, I consider this film to be his worst.
As a movie in itself, it's pretty decent with some solid suspense scenes and a fine supporting cast. However, the movie's too slow and long, and there's very little chemistry between the two leads. Being a Hitchcock fan myself, I've expected better and he's done better.
@louns82 saw it yesterday myself, while i'd agree with you that it isn't the best film, it is still a fairly good film in comparison to films nowadays.
Hitchcock was an amazing movie-maker but he began to loose his touch by the 70's
CutandPrintFilms 4 months ago
Hitchcock's worst.
RogueRotting360 4 months ago
A Hitch bombe!
seethevolcane 10 months ago
A lot of people are saying that this movie is bad. I actually think it's pretty good! :) but maybe that just has to do with my crazy obsession with Julie Andrews haha :)
strawberrycrazy1 11 months ago
@strawberrycrazy1 No it shows what a high standard Hitchcock is held to. This movie is excellent, it only falls short when compared to Hitchcock's brilliant filmography.
russianimp1 6 months ago
i love julie andrews
lala32027 1 year ago
This film was "Lackluster" at the most.Hitchcock didn't like the fact that he could not use his own star "Tippi Hedren" for this film,and from day 1 it was a bad movie.When you look back at other movies he made in the 60's like "the birds & marnie" you can see that this was not a classic like those were.
officialpickle 1 year ago
Absolute garbage. This movie fails on every level. Why Paul Newman, in his glorious heyday, would stoop to participate in this shit, is beyond me. And Julie Andrews was also misused here. Get over it, pals, your boy Hitchcock laid a lot of eggs. And this is indisputably one of them.
spagandtuna 1 year ago
the best ......................jejejejejejejejejejejejejejejeejejejejejejejeje
Hitchcock Hitchcock Hitchcock
rooberxxx 2 years ago
This is a great movie. I watch it all the time!
blackngoldgal65 2 years ago 7
i hope you see him there :)
yodavalentine 2 years ago
not the best movie of hitchcock .
louns82 2 years ago 4
I agree. I've a lot of films from Alfred Hitchcock, from the "Lodger" (1927; his only silent film) to Torn Curtain, I have a total of 15 films. Needless to say, I consider this film to be his worst.
As a movie in itself, it's pretty decent with some solid suspense scenes and a fine supporting cast. However, the movie's too slow and long, and there's very little chemistry between the two leads. Being a Hitchcock fan myself, I've expected better and he's done better.
DNchap1417 2 years ago
@louns82 saw it yesterday myself, while i'd agree with you that it isn't the best film, it is still a fairly good film in comparison to films nowadays.
bigfellalixnaw 5 months ago
this is one of the 43 films of hitchcock i got for my birthday
hitchcockfan81399 2 years ago
RIP
PAUL NEWMAN
GizmoRox994 3 years ago 3
Hard-to-find trailer now on YouTube! =D
GizmoRox994 3 years ago