The Birds

Rating:
Summary: Good film, long story.
Review: In the days of early special effects, drama was long so was the story in this film. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the Birds. But, there are several areas that should have been stewed down. Maybe it was an effect to create more tension in the story. I got bored. After first few bird-strikes, didn't, guess what was coming next?

Rating:
Summary: IT'S FOR THE BIRDS
Review: I always get annoyed when people say that the special effects in "The Birds" are great. . .for its time. Well, I don't have a time machine to go back to 1963, so let me state unequivocally: the special effects are lame, unconvincing, and, at times, down-right laughable. And, believe me, the special effects are the only thing that this ridiculous movie could have ever had going for it. The acting is wooden. Are we sure that "Tippi" Hedren wasn't a former mannequin--not a model? Rod Taylor is so wooden Tippi shouldn't have rented the boat. . .she could have used him to float across the bay! And what's up with Suzanne Pleshette? Is she a woman playing a drag queen playing a woman? Add to that ridiculous plotting, screamingly funny dialogue, THE MOST ANNOYING SONG EVER WRITTEN and sung by the school children before the crow attack, an over-the-top piece of acting to the balcony by Jessica Tandy, and a DVD with grainy visuals and flat sound and you've got one of the most over-rated pieces of cinema ever to be foisted off on the public as a "Classic." Give this movie the bird.

Rating:
Summary: I like this DVD ... but get my e-mail address correct
Review: Excellent. Sharp images>

Rating:
Summary: I like this DVD ... but get my e-mail address correct
Review: You have my wrong e-mail address. My correct e-mail address is [e-mail] and my name is Hilary King. Please make the correction.

Thanks, Hilary

Rating:
Summary: An OK movie of Alfred Hitchcock's . . .
Review: Out of all the Alfred Hitchcock movies I've seen, I'd have to say I like this one the least. The effects are the only good thing about this movie. The fact that there is no real ending to the movie really annoys me. It is about a woman who brings some lovebirds into a small town to give to a man's daughter. However, after the lovebirds are delivered, strange things start to happen. Birds start attacking people for no reason. In the end, everyone escapes the birds, but the movie ends with us still not knowing why the birds attacked. Not one of Alfred Hitchcock's best . . .

Rating:
Summary: The Birds - Is there any question It's a classic?
Review: Okay. . .The Birds is quite simply amazing. . .if you think about it, if this movie was made today, by ANY other director it would be thrown in with "The Swarm" with Michael Cane and "Jaws The Revenge" but the story. . .the camera angles. . .the innovative way of filmaking that Hitchcock was so famous for makes this the one and only best film about man against beast (if you'd like to put it that way). Okay, I admit that by todays standards the trick shots look somewhat fake, but who cares? I think if Hitchock had computer technology as we do today, he wouldn't have used them. The effects would be done the exact same way (or nearly). If CGI was used, it would have looked to clean and not primal the way he made it. Also, if the characters weren't in depth in the film like they were, the film would have beenjust another creature feature. The development between Melanie Daniels and Mitch Brenner make you care about what these people are going through. I don't know how else to put the way I feel abut the movie except to say "Indescribable" The terror, the romance, the black humor, the suspense all work together to make this one hell of a Hitchcock classic. Be sure to watch the whoping one hour and twenty minute documentary "All About the Birds" and look at Tippi Hedren's unique screen tests (as well as the photos and international newsreels) BUT IT! YOU WON'T BE SORRY! You will never look at a bird the same way again!

Rating:
Summary: Somewhat Over-rated
Review: The Birds really places more attention on the effects, and the story does lack in some places. But the perfomers led by Rod Taylor, are convinceing and it makes more for science fiction then it does with mystery (which was Alfred Hitchcock's area of film making). I liked Rear Window, better then this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Watch in Black and White
Review: Although the it was originally filmed in color, I first saw the Bird many years ago in black and white on television, and it was completely terrifying to me as a youngster. Perhaps it's just personal perspective, but watching the movie in color doesn't have the same impact - the black and white effect adds an ominous and shadowy texture that enhances the fear and tension that slowly builds through the film. The documentary on the DVD on the making of the Birds was excellent although it was somewhat shocking to see how much the actors have aged, especially Rod Taylor. My recommendation is to watch the movie late at night with the color turned off, and enjoy one of Hitchcock's best.

Rating:
Summary: The Birds
Review: This is a true SCARY movie a must see.

Rating:
Summary: The classic movie teaching
Review: First of all, "The Birds" is a brilliant example of the sci-fi genre, because it explores new possibilities for the human experience: Rockets and moon trips do not always fit in as a rule... it's a simple matter of questions. Hitchcock never embraced openly the supernatural aspect of "The Birds", he merely denied the old fashioned cotidianity of our own logical worlds. (And if Hitchcock ever succumbed to an openly fantastic detail, as in the final sequence of "Family Plot", that introduction was clearly with the director's tongue firmly planted in his cheek... ) New disposition of variables conform a whole different logic. Supernaturalism in "The Birds" is a trivial response because there should always be an excuse in Hitchcock's movies (a simple motif, like the confusion of characters in "North By Northwest"), just like chance or hazard are constants in Luis Buñuel: there must be a story to tell, first of all, and it never must cause any boredom. With the confidence of a great master, the movie-making in "The Birds" is quite simple (open and closed shots; natural sound; always with the angle of the camera in the right place) and subtle. Classic movie making. Elegantly, the movie opens with a comic scenario that involves us within the lives of plain romantic somebodies. Sure, we're expecting the birds to attack at any minute, so why is Hitchcock bothering with all the romantic knot? It is a golden rule, that silent comedians followed early on, that a screenplay should not begin with a spectacular display. Showing exact timing, Hitchcock breaks into the lives of the people in California, through the attack of the birds, and realism surfaces. The main distance between the director of "The Birds" and a montage filmmaker (just like Brian De Palma, who who had achieved the status of a suspense auteur), is that a montage fillmaker relies in images and sounds that can be manipulated after the shooting. Hitchcock never bothered with all that new wave stuff, he merely filmed exactly what he wanted and left very little to improvisation... and yet "The Birds" never lacks humor, romance nor a glimpse of sadness (which, just about 99 percent of today's thrillers simply do not compress.) The relationships between the women in this movie are so well constructed and performed (the looks in their eyes; the silences; the faked smiles), that could have sustained the whole story without any of the animal fierceness.

Hitchcock could have done (in his own way, with his own generic means) just about anything.