Good evening.
In spite of all the horrible, despicable things that have been said of Alfred Hitchcock in the past several decades, he will always be my first cinematic love. Ever since the traumatizing experience of seeing The Birds at age 9 and screaming at my mother to turn it off from the other room when the eye-less man is shown, I have been enamored with his work. That sheer terror did not serve as a deterrent for 9-year-old Andrew Borntrager – I wanted MORE!
Graciously, my local public library had no shortage of Hitchcock films. I’ll never forget the shocked/puzzled faces of the kind women just outside the library’s VHS collection when I would approach them to check out a copy of Vertigo, Rear Window, or Strangers on a Train. Initially, I think they were just surprised that someone so young was interested in such films, but eventually the implications of those looks turned into, “You’re checking this out again? This is the fifth time this year…”
At 12, or potentially before that, I had checked out every Hitchcock film the library was either willing or able to carry (there were no naughty R-rated films at this library…except for the foreign section that included several nudity-laden art-house films that were never submitted to the MPAA.)
On my first day of sixth grade, our teacher asked us to fill out a basic information sheet that included several questions about our interests – favorite bands, foods, etc. Of course, “favorite film” was on this list, and after very little thought, I wrote down Vertigo. At some point later that day, my teacher took me aside in the hallway, and wanted to double-check that I was specifically referencing the revered 1958 classic – I was. The only specific words I can remember from that conversation were, “That’s a beautiful film, isn’t it?” Needless to say, the rest of that school year was interesting. My teacher was actually able to procure some of the Hitchcock films I hadn’t been able to track down yet, and let me borrow them. If my memory serves me, there was even one occasion when she advocated with my parents to allow me to watch The Sixth Sense because of its Hitchcockian influences, even though it was PG-13 and I was 12 (yes, that mattered to them…) I still owe this teacher a place in an Oscar acceptance speech, should that ever happen.
By at least 13, those shoddy 1-dollar pseudo-bootleg DVDs of public domain releases were at the height of popularity. It suddenly became incredibly easy and cheap to track down Hitchcock’s more obscure works, including his silent films. Several years later, it was discovered that none of Hitchcock’s films were ever really in the public domain at all, but for a while these companies got away with mass-distributing the Hitchcock films no one cared about, without repercussion. My zeal for Hitchcock completionism was in full swing right around the time my household upgraded from dial-up internet to high speed, and this allowed me to finally fill in those last few gaps in his filmography. At 14, I found a copy of Under Capricorn online, and that completed my Hitchcock journey. To be honest, this was a tad depressing, due in part to the fact that Under Capricorn is a horrible melodrama barely worth the celluloid it was filmed on.
Hitchcock is often touted as a talented, influential director, but it took him many years to both find his own voice and build a repertoire strong enough to give studios the confidence needed to really let Hitch run wild. Many of his films were made under protest, with notable studio interference, or simply to fulfill contracts. As such, many of them are atrocious. As you’ll see in this list, about half of Hitchcock’s films are garbage, perhaps more. In some scenarios, the audio/video quality of the prints in distribution is terrible, making some of these movies very difficult to sit through. This does affect the viewing experience significantly enough to obscure much of the potential found in Hitchcock’s early directorial outings.
Because this is a countdown-style list, I’m going to begin by taking a proverbial dump on his early material. You’ll also notice that the list is nearly chronological, with a few notable exceptions. It’s pretty widely agreed upon that Hitchcock’s filmography wasn’t notable until the 1940’s, so be prepared for some vitriolic comments about his work during the silent and “talkie” eras. If it sounds like I’m just being an asshole and not placing his early work in its proper context, remember that, in spite of my fanatical Hitchcock loyalty, there are many films on this list that I could barely sit through.
I am not including the following works in this list:
Elstree Calling (1930):
This one is a musical variety show, and while Hitchcock’s influence is felt in the frame story, very little of its runtime is actually his work.
Number 13 (1922):
Including this would make me a filthy liar. This was Hitchcock’s first film, but it was never completed, and all we have is a single production still from the movie, along with hearsay.
An Elastic Affair (1930):
This is a short, and also another lost film.
The Mountain Eagle (1926):
Lost.
Watchtower Over Tomorrow, Always Tell Your Wife, Bon Voyage, Aventure Malgache, and The Fighting Generation:
These are all short films, several of which are commissioned war propaganda pieces.
Also, this list reflects my opinion, and is not an attempt at ranking these films based on any quasi-objective factors like influence and innovation.
52) Juno and the Paycock (1930)
Based on an acclaimed play, this was one of the first dollar-bin Hitchcock films to nearly deter me from taking on the challenge of watching his entire filmography. This arduous family drama is made all the more arduous by its 94-minute runtime. Many films from this era are mercifully short, but Juno goes straight for that modern feature length. While it is boring, at the very least we get plenty of juicy melodrama, including a “shameful pregnancy” plot twist. That doesn’t really make watching this film any easier, but at least we can snicker at it.
1/10
51) The Manxman (1929)
I could have easily put this at number 52 as my least favorite Hitchcock film, but even though this one is an unforgivable 100 minutes long, the hilarious pregnancy scandal drama toward the end make it just a little more enjoyable in a ridiculous sort of way. Not by much, but enough for me to honestly say that I’d rather watch it over Juno and the Paycock if I was forced to choose at gunpoint.
1/10
50) The Skin Game (1931)
This is just two wealthy families arguing over who gets to gentrify the neighborhood. It’s a bit disgusting to watch, but I suppose that’s the point. Also, there’s much less “skin” than a film called The Skin Game should be expected to have, even though, yet again, this film contains a scandalous pregnancy plot point. Imagine that.
2/10
49) Waltzes From Vienna (1934)
This little film, based on a stage musical, tells the story of the history of the Blue Danube Waltz, an instantly recognizable song by Strauss. Hitchcock would use waltzes in a much different context many years later in his film Shadow of a Doubt, among others. Hitch regarded this as a low point in his filmography, as he was essentially forced into the director’s chair by the studio. As much as I hear critics talk about some of the more influential aspects of this one, it’s still an awful slog with few redeeming qualities.
As I’m writing this, I’m beginning to wonder if the use of waltzes in his later work was a direct stab at how much he hated this film…
2/10
48) Under Capricorn (1949)
I’ve already talked enough shit about this one, but it should be noted that Under Capricorn was released during what many would consider a high point in Hitch’s career. To me, that makes the ridiculous melodrama all the more inexcusable. Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotton are in this, and both are really hamming it up. Plot-wise, this does delve into some darker territory such as gas-lighting and mental illness, but it’s too narratively-flaccid to make much of an impact.
3/10
47) Jamaica Inn (1939)
I remember being a little shocked by how much I hated this one. There’s plenty of potential. It’s based on a Daphne Du Maurier novel (an author whose work Hitch would go on to have great success adapting only a year later with Rebecca, and eventually The Birds.) Charles Laughton is the lead villain, and he really…steals the show? I know his character is supposed to be obnoxious, but DAMN! He really takes that to the next level. Maureen O’Hara, a talented actress, does nothing to elevate the trashy bullshit going on in this poorly-edited, poorly-shot, poorly-lit Hollywood stinker. It’s only watchable because the skeletal aspects of Du Maurier’s novel are present.
3/10
46) Champagne (1928)
Hitchcock admits to phoning this one in. It’s a silent comedy that goes virtually nowhere, and even includes some pretty egregious plot holes. The female lead’s no-good father loses all his money, forcing her to get a job to support the family. It’s trite, but not infuriating.
3/10
45) The Farmer’s Wife (1928)
This silent romantic comedy was actually pretty well-received by the general public, and was one of Hitch’s earliest successes. It’s still boring, unfunny, overlong, and full of squandered potential.
A farmer’s wife dies, and insists that he remarry. The rest of the film involves going through a list of “candidates” generated by the farmer and his housekeeper. He falls for the housekeeper. It’s sort of a cute film, I guess.
3/10
44) Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)
This is one I easily could have put lower on this list, but it’s such a departure from the Hitchcock I was accustomed to when I first saw it. I’ll never forget how furious I was that this wasn’t just a screwball comedy, but a lackluster screwball comedy. I grew up a Frank Capra fan, so my expectations for the genre were high, but still…
Hitch’s involvement in the film was primarily a favor to Carole Lombard. By this point, Hitchcock had already established his trademark brief cameos, and during production, Lombard herself directed Hitch’s cameo scene. She was a real hard-ass about it too, forcing him to re-shoot his extremely short appearance several times. Knowing Hitch’s directorial style, I’m sure this was a cathartic experience for the entire cast.
3/10
43) The Pleasure Garden (1925)
Before you ask: this is not porn.
Commonly known as Hitchcock’s directorial debut (though primarily because his earlier films were lost to time and justified apathy,) The Pleasure Garden is about two chorus girls at odds with each other. I’ve heard quite a few terrible things about this one, but I don’t remember it being particularly difficult to sit through.
3/10
42) Number Seventeen (1932)
Number Seventeen is probably Hitch’s most frustrating film. You can tell that there’s so much potential here, and his use of light and shadow is incredible for such an early talkie. As a thriller, it hits a few beats that would eventually become Hitch trademarks, and it also frequently incorporates comedic elements. Rather unsuccessfully, mind you, but they’re still present. The only prints of this one I’ve ever found have been absolutely horrid in quality, but you can tell that there’s something special under all that bullshit.
3/10
41) Rich and Strange (1931)
I wish I could rate this higher, even though it’s notoriously difficult to sit through because of such low quality audio and video, and extremely obnoxious and unlikable characters.
An unhappy married couple receives a letter from one of their uncles, stating that he is willing to give them an advance on their inheritance so long as they use the money to enjoy themselves in the present. The husband quits his job, and the couple go on a cruise along the Mediterranean. Both husband and wife quickly begin cheating on one another, but eventually discover that they are being taken advantage of by their suitors. The ship crashes, and the couple is abandoned. The following morning they’re rescued, and when they return home, we see them bicker in the same obnoxious and immature manner as before the film’s primary events.
I love unlikable characters and unhappy endings, so this one really grabbed me when I first saw it. Still, it’s not a great film, and it gets more and more difficult to sit through every time.
3/10
40) The Ring (1927)
A cursed film in ways that Gore Verbinski could only dream of, The Ring’s only nightmarish aspect is the prospect of watching it in the first place. It’s a boxing drama, and while it does carry some emotional weight…it’s a boxing drama.
4/10
39) Downhill (1927)
In theory, there’s something to be said for this one. Roddy, a young boarding school resident, is expelled from school for lying about being the father of an illegitimate child in order to protect his best friend. When Roddy returns home, he is turned away by his father because of the accusation against him. His life becomes increasingly complicated, as one-by-one, everyone he meets takes advantage of him or bleeds him dry, to the point of resorting to male prostitution. Through some rather shady circumstances, he finally returns home after his father discovers the truth about the accusations against Roddy.
For a silent film, the plot is very transgressive. This is far from the traditional escapist entertainment of the time, but it’s still rather dull.
4/10
38) Easy Virtue (1928)
Easy Virtue is another silent romance involving adultery, but unlike some of Hitch’s other attempts at this kind of melodrama, the acting here is at least passable. The only notable scene occurs toward the very end. Larita, a woman desperately trying to settle a divorce with her no-good husband, is put through the ringer throughout the entire trial. He wins in the end, and as Larita exits the court in defeat, she is swarmed by photographers, an event that occurred prior and had prompted her to flee. This time, she confronts the press, boldly proclaiming, “Shoot! There’s nothing left to kill.”
4/10
37) Young and Innocent (1937)
A young man named Robert finds a dead body along the shore, and reports it to Scotland Yard. They immediately assume his guilt, and he becomes a fugitive, enlisting the help of the constable’s daughter, who has faith in his innocence.
The “wrong man” plot is something that Hitchcock would eventually become notable for. Elements of this appear in around half of his films, if not more. Of all the movies Hitch directed that follow this formula, this is probably the worst. It’s still mostly watchable.
4/10
36) The Paradine Case (1947)
A married lawyer falls in love with a woman accused of murder. Gregory Peck is great, and the cinematography is impeccable. Other than that, I couldn’t remember anything about the film without turning to a plot synopsis, so I’m just going to go with my original IMDB rating from over 15 years ago and say:
5/10
35) Blackmail (1929)
One of Hitchcock’s better talkies, Blackmail concerns the girlfriend of a detective who, after nearly being raped, kills her assailant and goes on the run. She is blackmailed, but eventually, the truth comes out.
The film is notable for its sensitive portrayal of post-rape trauma, and for being a gender-swapped example of Hitch’s “wrong man” trope.
5/10
34) Secret Agent (1936)
This is yet another mistaken identity thriller, but more specifically, a spy thriller. While both sub-genres bleed into each other in Hitch’s filmography, this was one of the first to really lay out the formula he would use for the rest of his career. It’s not extraordinarily eventful, but it’s worth a watch.
5/10
33) Foreign Correspondent (1940)
To me, this has always felt like an inferior version of several other Hitchcock spy thrillers, but the Academy and many critics disagree with me. It was nominated for six Academy Awards including Best Picture, one of only two Hitchcock films to achieve this (the other being Rebecca). It’s worth watching, just not my personal favorite.
6/10
32) The Trouble With Harry (1955)
Yet another anomaly in Hitch’s work, The Trouble With Harry is a dark comedy – something of a morbid precursor to films like Weekend at Bernie’s. It’s very tongue-in-cheek, and the dialog is fairly racy for its time. The corpse of a man named Harry appears one day in a small Vermont community, and four of its residents frantically try to decide what must be done with the corpse. The film is far less concerned with who Harry is and how he died than it is with its characters’ reactions to his corpse. It hasn’t aged as well as I’d hoped, but I do still enjoy re-watching this one from time to time.
6/10
31) The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)
This is by far Hitchcock’s most notorious silent film, and it’s pretty solid. Heavily influenced by German Expressionist films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and M, The Lodger is inspired by the case of Jack the Ripper. The cinematography and use of (at the time) experimental camera angles was very notable in 1927. For much of its plot, the titular character’s guilt is left ambiguous, and while the film has a definitive ending, the true killer is never fully revealed. Pretty ballsy for its time.
6/10
30) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
While this film is mostly known for being reinterpreted by Hitchcock himself many years later, it’s still a fine film in its own right. The two plots vary quite significantly, although the basic structure is mostly intact. Peter Lorre’s performance is what makes this version stand out, and this whole project is unfortunately overshadowed by the admittedly superior remake.
6/10
29) Family Plot (1976)
Hitchcock’s final film is fairly reviled, especially among those who’ve primarily seen his work post-1950. The plot involves a fake psychic and her boyfriend, and two thieves out to steal some valuable gemstones. It’s a fun ride, and Hitchcock’s only collaboration with Bruce Dern and horror icon Karen Black. I still defend it as an entertaining watch.
6/10
28) Saboteur (1942)
Saboteur is pretty typical in structure to most Hitchcock spy thrillers, but its execution is a step above many of his early works. Its climactic sequence, shot at Radio City Music Hall and the Statue of Liberty, is still a marvel today, and much of the plot parallels North by Northwest.
6/10
27) Torn Curtain (1966)
I’ve always been surprised by the hate for this late-career Hitchcock spy thriller, in part because of the great performances by Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. It’s shot beautifully, and while it’s not quite up to par with something like The Man Who Knew Too Much’s remake, it’s worth checking out.
6/10
26) The Wrong Man (1956)
This is a really odd one. The title is the same name given to Hitchcock’s signature trope, and in many ways it plays out like his other films of the same nature, with one notable difference – it’s a true story. It’s one of the few Hitchcock films inspired by true events that sticks as closely to the real life story as possible. Henry Fonda also knocks it out of the park.
7/10
25) Topaz (1969)
Another unfairly criticized late-career Hitchcock film, Topaz is a good spy thriller. It’s not his flashiest work aside from the deep color palette, but the shot to your left is one of my favorites in all of film history. A man and woman embrace, and suddenly, we hear a gunshot. The woman slowly falls to the floor, her dress flowing in all directions like a pool of blood. It’s incredible.
Still, there was tons of studio meddling involved, and Hitchcock even shot an alternate ending that never made it into the film.
7/10
24) Sabotage (1936)
A loose adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s novel The Secret Agent, which would later be adapted on at least three other occasions, Sabotage is a pretty standard entry in Hitch’s filmography – albeit a very well-executed one. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this one, but in spite of having little to say about it, I know that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed myself at every viewing.
7/10
23) Murder! (1930)
It’s an early talkie, and to my knowledge no one has truly restored the film, which makes this difficult to rate. The wrongly-accused female lead is a fairly well-drawn character, and Norah Baring is often mesmerizing, if you can see/hear her through the distortion. This is also another example of German Expressionism’s influence on early Hitch.
7/10
22) Stage Fright (1950)
I don’t tend to hear about this one as often, but for me, it’s more re-watchable than other similar Hitch films. The general tone is much more comedic than his other thrillers, and the cast is stellar. Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, and Alastair Sim are all a joy to see on-screen, and Patricia Hitchcock, the director’s daughter, makes her debut here. Cole Porter even composed an original song for the film, and Hitchcock continues to experiment with elaborate long takes. It’s more campy than I would expect from early 50’s era Hitch, but I like that about it.
7/10
21) Frenzy (1971)
The director’s penultimate film, Frenzy, is what I imagine Hitch’s style would have been like without studio interference – even though I’m sure this film experienced some of that in one way or another. It fits right in with Giallo-inspired slashers, and earns its R rating, with plenty of nudity and unsettling neck-tie murders to go around. It’s almost sad to watch the film, because while it feels like a director once again re-inventing himself, he would never have the chance to utilize the more liberal attitudes toward sex and violence of the ’70s and 80’s. As a man who fought tooth and nail to include more taboo and complex material in his films than most studios were comfortable with, it would have been incredible to see how his work would have progressed were his career offset by about 20 years. Even though it’s not perfect, at least we have Frenzy.
7/10
20) The 39 Steps (1935)
There are three early Hitch films that I consider to be his “foundational” works: The Lodger, The Man Who Knew Too Much (Original), and The 39 Steps. The overwhelming critical acclaim of the latter tends to overshadow the former. The 39 Steps has pretty much everything you could want in this era of Hitch, and it was his first immediate and enduring success, even if it’s not as common for the film to come up in conversation in our modern age as Psycho or The Birds. Yeah, it’s another spy thriller, but it’s a damn good one. It was also Orson Welles’ favorite Hitchcock film.
8/10
19) I Confess (1953)
Another Hitch film I rarely hear about, I Confess, was not met with any critical fanfare upon its release. Its tone is more sombre, and there is little if any comic relief. Montgomery Clift stars as a priest who receives confession from a man who accidentally murders a rather vile lawyer, and with the help of his former lover, played by Anne Baxter, he must both prove his innocence and point the police in the direction of the real killer, without breaking the vow of confession. I think it’s a much better film than it gets credit for.
8/10
18) To Catch a Thief (1955)
To Catch a Thief is a different sort of “wrong man” film. Cary Grant is a retired professional thief, and somewhere in the French Riviera, another thief has co-opted his M.O. in order to frame him. With the help of a wealthy widow, played by Grace Kelly, he must clear his name by tracking down the real killer.
The glitzy Hollywood Technicolor era of Hitchcock’s career is aptly summarized with this film, and while I consider it one of the director’s lesser works, it’s still fantastic.
8/10
17) Suspicion (1941)
Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine shine in this incredible psychological thriller. Notorious playboy Johnnie and wealthy heiress Lina are two individuals who meet on a train and swiftly fall in love. However, Lina gradually begins to suspect that Johnnie’s eagerness to elope may have been motivated by more than love. Soon, she’s staring down the most terrifying glass of milk in cinema history (yes, far scarier than Alex DeLarge menacingly enjoying his spiked beverage at the Korova Milkbar.)
8/10
16) Lifeboat (1944)
Taking place exclusively on a lifeboat launched from a vessel sunk by a German U-boat, this paranoid single-setting thriller received three Academy Award nominations and then faded into obscurity. This one is based on a story by Steinbeck, but Hitch elevates the material by making it feel less like Steinbeck. Because Steinbeck sucks. Fight me.
Much of the praise for this film comes from both the directing and the performance of Tallulah Bankhead, easily one of my favorite names in Hollywood (and yes, that IS her real name.)
8/10
15) Spellbound (1945)
Now we’re getting into “essential viewing” territory. Spellbound is an early example of Hitchcock dipping his toes in the surreal and the topic of psychoanalysis. Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman star as two psychoanalysts at a mental hospital in Vermont. As the two get to know each other, Peck confesses that he is not a psychoanalyst at all – in fact, he suffers from amnesia, and believes that he has killed the man whose name he currently uses. Determined to unearth the truth, Bergman delves into Peck’s psyche, analyzing a surreal dream he has midway through the film.
The set for this dream sequence, from which the above still is taken from, was designed by Salvador Dali himself. It makes up about two minutes of the film, but it’s still a stunning visual set-piece. The production of Spellbound was a bit troubled, as its origins began with David O. Selznick pressuring Hitch to fulfill their contract and make another film, so long as it had its basis in psychoanalysis, something Selznick was fascinated with at the time. An “expert psychiatrist” was even brought on set to advise Hitch during filming. As you can imagine, Hitchcock was not thrilled with having some quack looking over his shoulder at all times, and the two had a rather adversarial relationship.
Originally, Dali’s dream sequence was supposed to be 20 full minutes of the film, and far more elaborate. The footage was even shot, but Selznick thought it too complicated, so most of it was removed. The footage has never been recovered. Spellbound may not have been as close to Hitchcock’s vision as he would have liked, but it’s still a great film (a concept that repeated itself through most of his career.)
9/10
14) North by Northwest (1959)
While I don’t quite drool over this one as much as some, it’s still iconic and immensely entertaining. It’s a very well-executed mistaken identity thriller, and those scenes with the crop-duster and Mount Rushmore aren’t just iconic, they’re stressful as hell. This is also one of Bernard Herrmann’s most iconic scores. Cary Grant’s work with Hitchcock resulted in several films that were everything I ever wanted out of the old James Bond films…but never got.
9/10
13) The Lady Vanishes (1938)
The Agatha Christie story Agatha Christie could only dream of writing, The Lady Vanishes is the film that finally gave Hitch the opportunity to migrate from the UK to Hollywood. It’s a classic story that you’ve probably seen some iteration of before – a young woman meets a kindly older lady who disappears overnight. The young woman searches the train, finding no trace of her friend, and is strongly discouraged from pursuing the matter any further. Is she the victim of gas-lighting, or simply out of her mind? This is a very well-thought-out thriller, and I highly recommend it.
9/10
12) Notorious (1946)
A complex love story involving three spies, Notorious is not only a great Hitchcock film, but a great Ingrid Bergman/Cary Grant partnership. Their on-screen chemistry along with Hitch’s masterful direction create a unique take on the WWII espionage thriller…again.
9/10
11) Dial M for Murder (1954)
If you haven’t seen this yet, watch it with the notion that it was meant to be shown in 3-D. Yeah.
Dial M for Murder is deliberately theatrical. Taking cues from an earlier Hitchcock film we’ll talk about in a moment, the plot concerns two men who slowly begin to realize that they’d rather their wives be dead…and that it may be viable to get away with it.
As the film takes place primarily in a single setting, Hitchcock used a variety of camera tricks, including digging a hole in the bottom of the set to get those low-angles, to keep the audience engaged by increasing the diversity of shots. It’s a subtle technical marvel.
9/10
10) Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
As a kid, I HATED this. It seemed too straightforward for a Hitchcock film, too dry. I was wrong of course, and it took my love of another film, 2013’s excellent Park Chan-Wook thriller Stoker, to force me to revisit this. I’m glad I did, because Joseph Cotton’s performance as the lovable uncle who may or may not be the “Merry Widow Murderer” is one of the most emotionally complex roles of his career. Teresa Wright, though probably far too old for her part, still gives us a wonderfully-nuanced performance.
9/10
9) Marnie (1964)
Marnie is not usually thought of as a great film, let alone a great Hitchcock film. When I was young, however, I adored every second of this pseudo-erotic thriller about the effects of post-traumatic stress. I even went so far as to name my cat Marnie, who lives to this day.
In retrospect, I understand the criticisms – I just disagree with them. Tippi Hedren’s performance as the last true Hitchcock Blonde is incredible, and shows a level of depth not always found in Hitch’s earlier films.
9/10
8) Strangers on a Train (1951)
As the title implies, two strangers meet on a train, setting the plot in motion. They have a conversation about committing the perfect crime – two strangers, each killing the others’ target. In 1951, this would have left very little to tie either player to a crime scene, and without the aid of DNA testing and other modern innovations, sounds very plausible. As perfect as this plan appears, murder is never that simple. One of these men is just having a bit of fun, making conversation. The other is deadly serious.
The premise of Strangers on a Train is fantastically thought-out, and the performances really bring this film to life. I especially enjoy Patricia Hitchcock in one of her most substantial roles.
10/10
7) Rope (1948)
Loosely inspired by the Leopold and Loeb murders and based on a play from 1929, Rope is pretty gay, and in 1948, gay was not acceptable in mainstream cinema. While Hitch was forced to “clean” things up a bit, he did a fantastic job of preserving the relationship between the two characters in very subtle ways. Alternatively, that honor should perhaps go to the screenwriter, Arthur Laurents – also gay. Whether or not preserving their sexuality was a good thing or not is up for debate (these are killers after all,) and while it’s not excruciatingly important to the plot, it does explain why the slightly softer character played by James Stewart goes alone with such heinous crimes.
Rope is an examination of the harmful effects of arrogant academia and gross misinterpretations of Nietzsche’s Übermensch concept. If that statement was a little specific and daunting, fret not – Rope is still an immensely entertaining movie, and it’s filmed as if it were a single uninterrupted take, with ten deliberately-obscured cuts.
10/10
6) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
I’ve seen this three times at my local art-house theater, and the first time I went to see it on the big screen I thought to myself, “That’s a lesser Hitchcock film…I’m probably going to fall asleep.” All three times I have been wrong.
I really do like the original, but DAMN this just so much more polished. James Stewart and Doris Day are absolutely believable as two tourists caught up in political intrigue in Morocco, and Day’s raw emotional reactions to her kidnapped son’s peril are haunting and complex. The climax is utterly explosive, and never disappoints.
10/10
5) Rear Window (1954)
When that awful Shia LaBeouf film Disturbia was released in 2007 to plenty of teen fanfare, I was pretty snippy with my peers. “Have you seen Rear Window? Because it makes Disturbia look like shit.” They hadn’t seen Rear Window, and upon realizing it was from 1954, generally had no interest in doing so. I know that’s a pretty big generalization, but it’s reflective of my experience.
Even before that, Christopher Reeve tried his hand at remaking the film. I’m a little more sensitive these days about how FUCKING AWFUL AND UNNECESSARY that remake was, because to be fair, this was one of the few roles Reeve could still play from his wheelchair. That’s pretty tragic all things considered, but it’s still a shitty movie.
There are countless other examples of films that take this basic premise (a bored, home-bound photographer spies on the neighbors and suspects murder) and twists it in one way or another. That’s fine, so long as it isn’t an outright remake with unlikable characters, LABEOUF.
Much of Rear Window’s technical marvel lies in the sets. The apartment complex in the film is built from the ground up, complete with complex water drainage systems for the scenes that required rain. It’s impressive even by today’s standards. The plot may be mostly straightforward, but it’s still an incredible film.
10/10
4) Rebecca (1940)
In many ways, Rebecca isn’t much of a Hitchcock film. While it is yet another example of studio interference, I don’t care.
I won’t say much about the plot, although it is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s novel, but two things really make this film stand out to me: the mansion at the heart of the story (Manderlay), and Judith Anderson’s performance as obviously-meant-to-be-a-lesbian-but-it’s-1940 Mrs. Danvers – a character whose actions are rarely directly menacing, but the implications of those actions…well….
10/10
3) The Birds (1963)
There are so many technical achievements within The Birds, but what really draws me in are the characters and the way its premise is dealt with.
Prior to The Birds, the “animal disaster plot” was relegated to schlocky B-movies. After The Birds, nothing changed, except that films such as these suddenly became a little more marketable. This is the pinnacle of the sub-genre, and probably always will be. The actual bird attacks are frightening, but even more frightening is the fact that there is no clear reason why these birds are attacking en masse. This would be a cop-out, but it’s explored in the film’s dialog to great effect.
10/10
2) Psycho (1960)
You knew this was coming. You know what this movie is about. If you don’t, just watch it. This is one of the most referenced films in cinema history.
Also, a quick shout-out to the belated sequel Psycho II, which should be a terrible mess, but is actually a solid thriller. It’s obviously not as good as the first, but it’s worth watching.
10/10
1) Vertigo (1958)
This is it. Thou shalt have no other Hitchcock films before Vertigo.
While I’m not in the extreme minority when calling this Hitch’s greatest work, it still remains controversial to this day. When Vertigo famously dethroned Citizen Kane as the greatest film ever made according to a poll by notorious film snob publication Sight & Sound, I wasn’t in the least bit surprised. Since then, Vertigo has become more often reviled as a melodramatic, preposterous mess, and more recent critical re-evaluation has been less kind. I don’t care.
I’ve seen it 50+ times, and I hope I live to see it 50+ more.
A score out of ten could never do Vertigo justice.