Is this the best movie ever made?

You didn't like The Birds' ending? That shit was tense and the final shot was gorgeous.

I prefer Shadow of a Doubt personally, but Strangers on a Train is up there.

In retrospect, they all may seem cliched now, but it's cliche done right. I say the same thing about Spielberg's early movies.

i didnt like how there wasnt a 'resolution'. no explanation for the attack or why they stopped. movie wouldve been better if the girl was evil and caused the birds to go crazy

Yeah I don’t get the Hitchcock hatred on Yea Forums...do the teens on here think he’s a boomer or something? He put out a lot of movies. Some bad but most were average at worst. Even a movie like Rope was respected for its experimental long takes and the ending sequence.

Shadow of a Doubt
Spellbound
Notorious
Suspicion
Dial M for Murder
The Wrong Man
Lifeboat
Saboteur
Strangers on a Train
I Confess
To Catch a Thief
Vertigo
North by Northwest
Psycho
The Birds
The Man Who Knew Too Much (Jimmy Stewart/Doris Day version)

Just the usual contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism, I assume. That and a general lack of appreciation for film history.

no

Hitchcock was the Nolan of the 50s and made pulp flicks for mass audiences. If you're intelligent you don't rate him (or any American filmmaker) very highly because his films are not cerebral like real filmmakers like Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Dreyer, Ozu, Truffaut, etc.

>ahh bright lights
No

Cork sniffers like you are why I don’t do European cinema. I’d gladly watch Elvis Presley’s filmography before most of that self aggrandizing nonsense.

nah. its neither the best hitchcock or jimmy stewart film

>this is your brain on American """""""cinema"""""""
how do you cope with the fact the best American movie (Paris, Texas) was made by a European director?

Attached: 1553257399668.png (581x525, 55K)

>Hitchcock was the Nolan of the 50s and made pulp flicks for mass audiences
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not even film needs to be Andrei Rublev.
The point is being good in whatever your specific genre is. And in that respect, something like Tom & Jerry could very well be considered a masterpiece as much as "serious film making" like Scenes from a Marriage.

Ironic that his only film the won best picture (Rebecca) isnt on your list

Rope is clearly the best. You can't prove me wrong.

Says who faggot?

you only like it cause the bad guys are gay

every* sorry dawg, I slipped up

What hole?

You're the equivalent of a Playboy model trying to use big words on TV to make themselves appear more intelligent. It's unnecessary.

Absolutely agree. I was forcing myself to like stuff like North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, The Man Who Knew Too Much etc. but it just wasn't working for me. It took time for me to reach that same conclusion. I think his best film might be Rebecca, the one where studio had the most control.

Hitchcock is nothing like Nolan. Guys, you don’t have to like his movies but to downplay his artistry because xyz made up reasons is on you. He was brilliant and the so-called geniuses of the New Wave cited his movies as influences. Read Francois Truffauts interview book with him. He was like a child meeting his idol. He revolutionized the way movies were produced and promoted. His body of work is staggering and you’re in the minority if you think otherwise.

Yeah. Well No..., It's Like A Food that you food medefor like a food medeforee. I
american movie kino kino knioooooo. Who tyhe fuck uses food metefores when e there just a good way to use a metafore IM EUROPEAN!!! you use theme like anything ewlse but thene some ashole NIGGER NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER goes and does some shit like this. This is why I hate films they vbreed ignorant little waffel eating fagots like you fuckj you.!

What?

Attached: Untitled-1.jpg (593x677, 16K)

>If you're intelligent you don't rate him (or any American filmmaker) very highly because his films are not cerebral like real filmmakers like Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Dreyer, Ozu, Truffaut, etc.
all right everyone point and laugh

fair point, I did enjoy Rear Window a lot more than his other flicks, but I still maintain that his films are just broad entertainment by and large.

hmm yes very big words like "cinema" and "filmmaker", go on.

>If you're intelligent you don't rate him (or any American filmmaker) very highly because his films are not cerebral like real filmmakers
>posts a bunch of directors who just copied Griffith
what did he mean by this

...

Grace Kelly is gorgeous.

Again, what did he mean by this

GAY

Bestest of waifus

Attached: 367800_poster_l.jpg (363x500, 38K)

my waifu is still alive

Attached: olivia.jpg (620x784, 47K)

yeah, barely

Attached: a7019d878d923105d584bd9db42b42e_3bc91d7e_540.gif (540x304, 1.67M)

>Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Dreyer, Ozu, Truffaut

Ah yes, entry level hipster art for film students who think they have taste. I think I'll stick to Hitchcock. His movies were popular for a reason.

>I think I'll stick to Hitchcock
fair but you can't complain about Nolan or he Dark Knight ever again because they are fundamentally the same as Hitchcock's proto-capeshit.

Not him, but you're in the wrong here. In about 2-3 years you'll stop getting enjoyment out of film, period. I've been where you've been at.

I never complained about any of those things. Nolan is a legit good film maker and the only people who say otherwise are the same film students as mentioned above.

I don't know who you are, but you're 100% in the right.

>Nolan is a legit good film maker and the only people who say otherwise are the same film students as mentioned above.
Anybody with a brain would also object to that assessment because Nolan treats his audience like school children. He needs to cram every movie with as much gratuitous expository dialogue as he can. All his movies are intellectually offensive. Incredibly derivative and dull filmmaking. I believe the mastermind behind the films are Jonathan, his brother. Chris will then promptly gut them, leaving them entirely devoid of creativity, life or any spark of imagination and rewrites the material to appeal to mass audiences. He's philistine's interpretation of an avantgarde filmmaker the only problem is that he's only marketed as a high profile avantgarde filmmaker. His fraudulent nature will be exposed one day and he will quietly recede into the shadow from whence he came.

Hefty cringe here. Tangible.

No you can't.

Great satire.

There's a comma after no.

yea, I read Paul Schrader's book too. You're allowed to like filmmakers other than the ones you learn about in class.

>The Man Who Knew Too Much (Jimmy Stewart/Doris Day version)
The old version is better because of Peter Lorre, fight me.

"Hey hello I don't think Hitchcock is that good"
>wow lmao pretentious art student
"Hey I really love Hitchcock"
>wow lmao imagine loving a predictable director who made movies for the masses
"Hey hello I think Nolan is overrated"
>wow neck yourself really epic satire

Why is everyone on this board so toxic and putting so much effort into being contrarian? Why can't people just like certain directors more than others? Ffs my favorite director is Tarkovsky but every time he's mentioned on this board, people ignore him because he's "entry level". So what if he is? Are you proposing that if someone doesn't like action films, superhero films and whatnot, that they should find the most obscure director in some remote corner of the world that made a postmodernist film about an adopted koala and how it affects the sex drive of the bourgeois? My best friend barely knows who Tarkovsky is, yet we enjoy talking about him and his work, just as much as I enjoy talking about some of his favorite directors whom I don't like and/or don't know much about. Stop being such insufferable faggots, who are you trying to impress with your post

Based Pretentious Eurofag

this is precisely correct. listen to this user in all things.