Rear Window : I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

1) Incredibly dull, talky script (despite some funny lines)
2) Stagy, uncinematic direction.
3) Total unbelievability:
a) Jeff not using every ounce of strength he had to crawl over to the door and lock it when he hears Thorwald approach. In fact, pretty much everything in the climactic scene was ridiculous.
b) Thorwald burying his wife's head in the flower bed. There are about a million places that would have been better.
c) If we take it on faith that everyone's windows were wide open because of the heat (still a big leap, IMO), how does one explain their still being wide open when the weather cools down? Furthermore, with everyone's windows wide open, how do Lisa and Stella think they're not going to be seen when they go crawling over walls, digging around in the flower bed, etc?
4) The scene where the neighbor with the murdered dog rails against her fellow neighbors is truly embarrassing.

Fail. The Cornell Woolrich short story was much better.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

Uncinematic? This film is a master class in editing.Everything going on outside has to be matched with the inside shots.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

Not sure what you mean about the outside/inside shots. All Hitch had to do was shoot the external action (the staging in all the apartments had to be well choreographed, but that's not a Herculean task) then add the reaction shots. Nothing too complicated there.

The camerawork simply had no variety to it. I could describe every shot in the film because they were all the same.

What Polanski could have done with this... if it had been made 10 years later.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

If Polanski had made it, Miss Torso would have been 14 years old and Polanski would have done his cameo in HER apartment.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

I fervently disagree.


1) Incredibly dull, talky script (despite some funny lines)

No, it wasn't.


2) Stagy, uncinematic direction.

The elaborate neighborhood backyard set was fully built on a sound-stage for precisely that reason. Hitchcock - one of (if not the) pioneers in the cinematic language of direction - pushed his own boundaries in some of his films; forcing himself to try a different approach to his usual direction (Lifeboat and Rope are just two others that spring to mind). Whether you liked the direction is irrelevant - it's considered a masterwork.


3) Total unbelievability:

As with your #1 complaint, this is totally subjective. Not only that, it's irrelevant to why the the film is considered great, which has to do with it's themes and execution, not it's plot mechanics.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)


Whether you liked the direction is irrelevant - it's considered a masterwork.

Um, it's called an opinion. I can argue why the direction was uncinematic, just as I can argue that Lifeboat was considerably MORE cinematic, despite taking place in an even more restricted setting. I don't feel I have to slavishly fall in line with the critical consensus on ANY movie. There are plenty of films that were critical darlings that I didn't care for.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)


Um, it's called an opinion.

Yes, and your opinion is irrelevant to it being a masterpiece.


I can argue why the direction was uncinematic, just as I can argue that Lifeboat was considerably MORE cinematic, despite taking place in an even more restricted setting.

You seem to have missed the point again. Whether Hitchcock's clever choice of directing style to mirror the themes of his film appeals to you because you feel it's "uncinematic" is irrelevant; it appeals to the vast majority of cinephiles and critics precisely because it perfectly matches the themes.


I don't feel I have to slavishly fall in line with the critical consensus on ANY movie.


I could give a damn whether you fall in line with critical consensus, but you seem blissfully unaware that there's a difference between fallacious opinion and valid critique: logic and supporting evidence. You have neither; just simplistic opinions which are subjective and/or irrelevant to 'Rear Window's greatness.

OTOH, there is a large body of in-depth, well-reasoned and supported critical writings explaining exactly why it's a great film. In other words, when it comes down to judging the relative merit or weight of criticism, your's just doesn't have any.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

My, aren't you pleasant. I should have known from the outset what kind of mentality I was dealing with here. If you think my criticisms of the film hold no weight, then present counter-criticisms instead of implying I have no right to my opinion. And stop hiding behind the safety of majority critical opinion and do some thinking of your own.
If you had been a reasonable person, I would have gladly gone into my critiques in detail. But you and this conversation are not worth further effort.
PS, it's clear that you feel as protective of this movie as if it were your own child. That's sad.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)


My, aren't you pleasant.

My pleasantness-level is in direct response to your vapid, troll-ish opening post (e.g. using adolescent language like "Fail.") If you want people to respond to you seriously, you need to change the language you use.


If you think my criticisms of the film hold no weight, then present counter-criticisms...

I've already done that with as much effort as I felt your "criticisms" were worth, but if you feel the need to actually understand the film, here are some real critical analyses of the film that popped up with a second of searching:

https://jesslongstaffcinema.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/psychoanalysis-of-alfred-hitchcocks-rear-view-window/

https://whatsupwill.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/what-film-is-an-analysis-of-alfred-hitchcocks-rear-window/

http://www.filmsite.org/rear.html

There are many more...


...instead of implying I have no right to my opinion.

I never implied anything of the sort; you still don't seem to comprehend my point. Everyone's entitled to an opinion; e.g. my next-door neighbor is of the opinion that man never walked on the moon - but that doesn't make all opinions accurate.


PS, it's clear that you feel as protective of this movie as if it were your own child. That's sad.

What's sad is the desperate attention that Internet trolls need to attract with childish, inane "criticisms". I can see from your posting history here that it's your regular behavior.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)


I can see from your posting history here...

So you're stalking me, huh? Figures.
Listen, creepy, the only troll around here is YOU. This is a forum for giving one's opinions on film, not to be a cheerleader or to build up the self-esteem of people like you, and if you can't handle negative opinions about your favorite movies then you should go elsewhere. I am not trying to start a flamewar. Take a look at the very first word in my subject line: I. This means that what follows is my subjective opinion, not an objective fact. Also, unlike you, I do not make personal attacks... unless one is made against me, and it is always from some delicate, fragile soul like you who is so insecure that you have to lash out at anyone who dares to criticize your cherished bit of celluloid. Again, that is really sad. There are much MUCH more important things to worry about in this world. You will discover that once you venture out in it.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)


So you're stalking me, huh?

Ha... sure, clicking on someone's posting history is "stalking" - which is why IMDB included it as a feature.


Listen, creepy, the only troll around here is YOU.

You are the very definition of the word "troll" ("one who posts a deliberately provocative message to a message board with the intention of causing maximum argument": again, check posting history and message headers); another thing (along with 'Rear Window' and a number of other films) that you seem unable to grasp. Of course, being a fatuous blowhard means that you're blissfully unaware of your own behavior.


This is a forum for giving one's opinions on film, not to be a cheerleader or to build up the self-esteem of people like you, and if you can't handle negative opinions about your favorite movies then you should go elsewhere.

No thanks, I prefer to counter witless trolls such as yourself here - just as you prefer to post your insipid, feeble opinions here, as opposed to actual websites that contain in-depth film analysis.


...it is always from some delicate, fragile soul like you who is so insecure that you have to lash out at anyone who dares to criticize your cherished bit of celluloid.

Delicate? Ha... you're the one whinging about being "pleasant" or "personal attacks". Again, your denseness is truly awe-inspiring; you still can't fathom the difference between specious opinion and actual critique. And, of course, you've yet to counter a single point - due to your fragile ego being bruised.

Re: I'll say this much…

I'll say this much: when I first saw this film (about 12 or 13 years ago), I liked it. Since then, I simply haven't been able to finish it.

Meanwhile, I absolutely adore some other Hitchcock films, such as Rope, Dial M For Murder, and Blackmail (the silent version).

I also like quite a few thrillers/mysteries/whodunits from the 1930s and 1940s.

To be quite honest with you, I really don't understand any of those films. I should stick to Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck episodes, along with Road Runner. Those are really my style and up my alley. I admit that the Road Runner episodes still have me stumped.

(I've made similar comments to this on the Citizen Kane board, and with good reason.)

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen =

Re: I'll say this much…


I admit that the Road Runner episodes still have me stumped.

If you wrote the following review about one of Chuck Jones' Road Runner episodes, I'd believe you:

1) Incredibly dull, non-talkative script.
2) Repetitive, uncartoonish direction.
3) Total unbelievability.

Re: I'll say this much…

The Road Runner episodes are WAY too complicated for me! Someday, I'll figure out the plots of those episodes.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen =

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

Don't worry about it. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it.

Personally, I couldn't get through it the second time around. It's one of several films which I loved when I first saw it, but afterwards, I haven't been able to finish it.

I recommend other Hitchcock films: Rope, Dial M For Murder, Suspicion, Notorious, Blackmail, The Paradine Case, Vertigo....

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen =

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

Exactly! Opinions are opinions. Mine is no better or worse than anyone else's.

There are quite a few films I loved when I first saw them. Since I became something of a cinematic aesthete (or, as my wife says, snob) I am much more critical.

Vertigo is great, Suspicion is great, Psycho is great, Lifeboat is great, NxNW is great... but I think my personal fave would have to be Rebecca. I wish Hitch had gotten the Oscar for it, as I found John Ford's work in GoW rather plodding.

Re: I don't understand the love for this movie (spoilers)

I suspect that Rear Window gets so much attention because it's covered in many film courses. That doesn't mean that the whole world has to love this film. I can think of much better thrillers, some directed by Hitchcock and some lesser-known movies (like The Unguarded Hour (1936)).

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen =
Top