200. Vertigo (1958)
Do you believe that someone out of the past - someone dead - can enter and take possession of a living being?
Title: Vertigo
Date Watched: 2/15/2013
Original Ranking Out of 10: 10
Revised Ranking Out of 10: 6
Synopsis: A retired police detective investigates the supposed possession of an old friend's wife.
The Good: Very good performances and excellent use of color.
The Bad: Doesn't really have enough material to support a two hour movie. Very melodramatic at times. Love story isn't at all convincing and the ending is unsatisfying.
Why Do I Own This Movie?: Hitchcock collection.
Should I Still Own This Movie?: Sure. Maybe I'll appreciate it more in the future.
What Did I Notice That I Didn't Notice Before?: Kim Novak's Groucho Marx-esque painted-on eyebrows.
Other Impressions: Here's a movie that was recently named the best ever made by Sight and Sound (at least on the critic's list) and I hate being the hipster who says it's overrated, but it is (and I am kind of a hipster)! I really went into this viewing (the fourth time I've seen it, if I remember correctly) hoping to love Vertigo as much as I did the first time I saw it, but, instead, I came out more disappointed than ever before.
The story is just not very interesting and the most important element -- the relationship between Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart -- doesn't work. It comes out of left field and, while it's not difficult to see why he's into her, it's quite another to understand what she loves about him (North by Northwest had this same exact problem).
But I really want to like the movie and none of these issues would be a problem if the movie was just *better*. It's not fun or even particularly entertaining, which is a shock considering the man behind the camera.
Vertigo is obviously not without its moments, though. Jimmy Stewart is particularly good here and I don't think the camera technique of pulling forward and zooming out (or is it the other way around?) has ever been put to better use than here. Hitchcock shot the movie well, too, and there are a number of sequences that work with very little or no dialogue.
So I'm left feeling like I'm missing something. When I first saw Vertigo, I was in high school and it really worked for me. I sympathized with Stewart's obsession and went along with the plot developments. Now I knew the whole story going in and was disturbed by Stewart giving Novak the make-over towards the end. So maybe it's because I'm a different person, but I would not rank Vertigo anywhere near Hitchcock's best, nor would I recommend it to a Hitchcock virgin, and I certainly wouldn't put it in the number one slot of any top ten list I devised.
The List
Title: Vertigo
Date Watched: 2/15/2013
Original Ranking Out of 10: 10
Revised Ranking Out of 10: 6
Synopsis: A retired police detective investigates the supposed possession of an old friend's wife.
The Good: Very good performances and excellent use of color.
The Bad: Doesn't really have enough material to support a two hour movie. Very melodramatic at times. Love story isn't at all convincing and the ending is unsatisfying.
Why Do I Own This Movie?: Hitchcock collection.
Should I Still Own This Movie?: Sure. Maybe I'll appreciate it more in the future.
What Did I Notice That I Didn't Notice Before?: Kim Novak's Groucho Marx-esque painted-on eyebrows.
Other Impressions: Here's a movie that was recently named the best ever made by Sight and Sound (at least on the critic's list) and I hate being the hipster who says it's overrated, but it is (and I am kind of a hipster)! I really went into this viewing (the fourth time I've seen it, if I remember correctly) hoping to love Vertigo as much as I did the first time I saw it, but, instead, I came out more disappointed than ever before.
The story is just not very interesting and the most important element -- the relationship between Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart -- doesn't work. It comes out of left field and, while it's not difficult to see why he's into her, it's quite another to understand what she loves about him (North by Northwest had this same exact problem).
But I really want to like the movie and none of these issues would be a problem if the movie was just *better*. It's not fun or even particularly entertaining, which is a shock considering the man behind the camera.
Vertigo is obviously not without its moments, though. Jimmy Stewart is particularly good here and I don't think the camera technique of pulling forward and zooming out (or is it the other way around?) has ever been put to better use than here. Hitchcock shot the movie well, too, and there are a number of sequences that work with very little or no dialogue.
So I'm left feeling like I'm missing something. When I first saw Vertigo, I was in high school and it really worked for me. I sympathized with Stewart's obsession and went along with the plot developments. Now I knew the whole story going in and was disturbed by Stewart giving Novak the make-over towards the end. So maybe it's because I'm a different person, but I would not rank Vertigo anywhere near Hitchcock's best, nor would I recommend it to a Hitchcock virgin, and I certainly wouldn't put it in the number one slot of any top ten list I devised.
The List