Marnie : This movie is such a polished turd.

I know it's already been said here, but what a slow, boring, uninteresting film with very questionable acting. For one thing, it did not even "feel" like a Hitchcock film. The cinematography was fine, but it had more of a 1970s look than a mid-1960s. The whole film was justoff. I agree with others that this is probably Hitch's worst.

My own belief is that once Princess Grace canceled her commitment to do the film, he lost heart . . . clearly Tippi was a second, or perhaps last choice . . . he may have considered others . . . he lost all interest, that's how it seems to me . . .

Not to mention Hitch and Tippi's falling out behind the scenes. Although, I also believe the screenplay and editing was as much to blame as the directing/acting.

Stick to your Friends obsession.

Friends was an excellent sitcom. Marnie was an unremarkable film. You have no argument.

You are surely overdoing matters here, sorry.
I could question a number of items, but 'questionable acting' isn't one of those. Sean Connery was great and convincing, and even the second choice as leading lady was far from being what you call the movie in the title.

It felt very much like Hitchcook, too. It didn't feel like a Hitchcook at his peak, and with the actors he might have preferred, but especially this one, plotwise, is a Hitchcook through and through.

I don't believe you saw really all Hitchcooks. Sorry, but he did aplenty of lousy ones, and this isn't one of the latter. ;-)

Believe me or don't. Agree with me or don't. What can I say other than we all have our own opinions about these things.

I think Marnie was an excellent film. Ahead of its time.

I have watched Friends. Now THAT is really boring and unfunny.

Could I BE any more uninterested in this response?! (Friends reference you won't get)

"Could I BE any more uninterested in this response?!"

I suppose not if you are only interested in having people agree with your unsupported "observations."

Obviously you could, since you took time to respond. Asshat!

---

The cinematography was fine, but it had more of a 1970s look than a mid-1960s.

---

So the movie was ten years ahead of its time, according to your own evaluation. This is a reason to despise it, how?

I also despise it but I don't think looking ten years ahead of its time is a fair complaint.

However, I'm delighted to find you don't give a damn about disagreeing opinions, as that will spare both of us any of your obnoxious and unsupported answers.



Always feel free to attack someone as a substitute for thinking.

The point I was trying to make about the 1970s look, was that it felt out of place like so many other things (acting, writing) in the film. I don't feel I'm unsupported at all here, as many reviewers and viewers of the film in general have expressed the same opinion. You're the one that's in the minority. Save your anger for the bedroom where it belongs.

Thanks for your comments, and I can understand why you feel that way. I generally like Hitchcock's films, but the first time I saw "Marnie" it seemed like one of the most awkward and stilted films I had ever seen. Over time it got better, but I remember my first reaction was pretty negative. A lot of important things were left unsaid or not shown. Who wants to just see a bunch of people just talking about it ? In the DVD extras, Diane Baker even admits that an important scene with her and Marnie was cut, and she felt it would have helped. That's the movie biz, and if you are big enough, you can just do what you wantHitch did exactly that
RSGRE

Over the last 50 years I have seen the film at least half a dozen times, and I now think it's perhaps one of the most under rated and Hitchcockesque of his films. Try watching again in ten years.

A movie like this comes with a lot of baggage . . .

1) inevitable comparisons to Hitchcock's other (better) films

2) Connery's superstardom with James Bond

3) whether the viewer experienced (or at least understands) the culture of early-1960's America (very different from the over-hyped Vietnam-Civil-Rights-Rock-and-Roll-long-hair-protest 1960's that came later)

4) whether the viewer is patient enough to put up with the slower pace of pre-MTV, pre-special effects* filmmaking

I fully understand that many (especially younger) Marnie viewers can not overcome these limitations. And I'm also going on record that liking or disliking Friends has nothing to do with any of that.


* It doesn't have CGI or laser beams, or space ships flying around, but Marnie does feature terrific Matte Paintings, which were the 'special effects' of that era. Type "Matte paintings in __________ (any 1950's or 60's Hitchcock movie you want)" into GoogleImage.

I hate all of the dumb "you didn't like it because it didn't have CGI or explosions" comments. You know what other movies didn't? North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, Psycho, Vertigoand every other Hitchcock film. The reason people didn't like Marnie had nothing to do with it being "pre-MTV" as many of the same people LOVE movies from the same era.

It's very hard to follow and tough to get invested in any of the characters. It's certainly also a little too long but if it was a better film that wouldn't matter. Heck, North by Northwest is a long film and it's captivating the whole way through.

---

thomasam32 says > I hate all of the dumb "you didn't like it because it didn't have CGI or explosions" comments.

---

I understand your frustration but I think there's something to what these people are saying. It clearly does not apply to you but you must admit that those who are accustomed to watching modern movies and who enjoy the special effects would tend to have a harder time appreciating Marnie.

The special effects in it are obvious and dated, like when Marnie is riding the horse, and the movie is more a thinking, talking movie than an action one. Personally, those are the reasons I prefer older movies. I like the lack of CGI and explosions but I know that movies containing those things are popular so a lot of people must really like them.

I had never seen the movie until recently but I had heard of it. What I heard bore no resemblance to the movie I saw; others have said the same. I didn't mind it but I think for some people it might make the movie that much more confusing. Also, one of the things I love about older movies is the subtlety. Naturally, anyone who's unfamiliar with subtlety or who prefers blatancy might have a tougher time understanding or enjoying this film.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

Come on though, do you really think people are watching The Transformers and then watching Marnie and comparing the two? I doubt many people have even seen both. I just think when most people say they don't like a movie of this genre they have reasons that are specific to this genre, not compared to Skyfall or Fast and Furious 8.

Marnie is my absoolute favourite Hitchcock. Adore the way in which the story is teased and coaxed out of our Marnie and her eventual redemption from her own trauma. Delicious.

VidaBoheme, Friends is pretty ropey. Have you seen The Comeback? Much better!

I'm working on a chart of trash novels, will send a link and promote my wares if this thread continues.

Whether they like it or not, those who don't see the merits of this film must be simple-minded (IMHO), especially anyone who elevates Friends above it, VidaLoco.

waldolydecker

Just wanted to take one last opportunity to say that this movie still sucks, and any crybaby that couldn't handle my opinion can eat an entire ocean of d!cks, and go cry into their pillow. Because now you have no platform. Peaaaaccccceeee!!!!!!

I guess you do get the last word, sayonara everyone !

I disagree. I think The Trouble With Harry followed by Family Plot are Hitch's worst. BUT I would never call a Hitchcock film a turd.

BUT yes. Marnie is the one Hitchcock film I want to see remade. I would make a few major story changes. First of all, Mark would never touch Marnie. In fact, I would want him to have enough self-respect to walk away as soon as he helped Marnie. They were both going to be miserable in that relationship. Two, I would make the supposed assault that traumatized Marnie more clear. Her trauma would perfectly reflect what happened. Her hatred for red wouldn't be so confusing.