When I first saw this film, it was a double feature with Rear Window in NYC. For me, that was one of the most spectacular cinematic experiences ever. It's only upon rewatching Vertigo that I can get on board with the nitpicks. It definitely doesn't hold up as well upon reexamination.
Hitch was annoyed at the low box office and blamed it partially on Jimmy Stewart being too old. I am entranced by so many moments and yet I have my major gripes. The swirling figures in the credits really suck - they do not induce vertigo at all. Second is Stewart's nightmare sequence ESPECIALLY the animated flowers, Stewart's head in that scene is silly. The car following scene is endless but is almost worth it for the flower shop opening door.
I really wonder if the guy on the left knows what a plothole is. Jimmy Stewart being an arguably bad detective is not a plothole. His maybe or maybe not having a sore back is not a plothole.
Fair enough, I am probably using “plothole” a little too loosely, sort of as a catch all for perceived inconsistencies or logical failings of the story. Obviously him “having a sore back” is not a plothole, but would “he has a substantial injury that seems to be incredibly painful and a physical hindrance but then he has no problem diving into the ocean and retrieving an adult woman from the water” be considered a plothole? Sincerest thanks for watching and commenting! -Ev
Also, I'm not sure the guy on the left knows what the word "objectively" means. As when he says a scene is objectively bad but ^if you disagree that's fine.^
Identical mistress and wife is the most far-fetched element of the movie, but it doesn't matter. The movie is a profound exploration of the human condition and depth psychology; on a par with Dostoevsky.
THESE 2 GUYS ARE JUST OUT OF A PSYCHIATRIC WARD! VULGAR, CRAZY, SPEAKING NONSENSE, I WON' BE WATCHING TWICE ANOTHER COMMENT BY THEM OF ANY MOVIE WHATSOEVER !
~ If it’s holes in the story that bothers you, I would advise you that they exist in prominent form in most all of his films if you even half pay attention ~
I can only go by what he has said about it, that he doesn’t think the holes mean anything much to the point of the story & so treats them as red herrings. While agree that sometimes is the acceptable case, but at other times they stand out like glaring sore thumbs ~
I’m not going to ruin it for you by revealing what I’m referencing if you haven’t yet seen it, but the most glaring example to me was in Dial M For Murder, which nobody seems to notice or mention until I bring it up in discussions like this. But anyway, you’ll come across your share in the viewing, how seriously they affect your enjoyment/appreciation of the films despite this is of course up to you ~
When I first saw this film, it was a double feature with Rear Window in NYC. For me, that was one of the most spectacular cinematic experiences ever. It's only upon rewatching Vertigo that I can get on board with the nitpicks. It definitely doesn't hold up as well upon reexamination.
I mean, that SOUNDS like an amazing experience. For all my quibbles, I would love to see "Vertigo" in a theater. -Ev
It was totally amazing! I mean, that's the way to see Vertigo -- on the big screen!@@TheBluffCouncil
Hitch was annoyed at the low box office and blamed it partially on Jimmy Stewart being too old. I am entranced by so many moments and yet I have my major gripes. The swirling figures in the credits really suck - they do not induce vertigo at all. Second is Stewart's nightmare sequence ESPECIALLY the animated flowers, Stewart's head in that scene is silly.
The car following scene is endless but is almost worth it for the flower shop opening door.
I really wonder if the guy on the left knows what a plothole is. Jimmy Stewart being an arguably bad detective is not a plothole. His maybe or maybe not having a sore back is not a plothole.
Fair enough, I am probably using “plothole” a little too loosely, sort of as a catch all for perceived inconsistencies or logical failings of the story. Obviously him “having a sore back” is not a plothole, but would “he has a substantial injury that seems to be incredibly painful and a physical hindrance but then he has no problem diving into the ocean and retrieving an adult woman from the water” be considered a plothole? Sincerest thanks for watching and commenting! -Ev
Also, I'm not sure the guy on the left knows what the word "objectively" means. As when he says a scene is objectively bad but ^if you disagree that's fine.^
Look, I may not know what "objectively" means but I DO know that I am objectively ALWAYS correct. If you disagree that's fine. -Ev
Identical mistress and wife is the most far-fetched element of the movie, but it doesn't matter. The movie is a profound exploration of the human condition and depth psychology; on a par with Dostoevsky.
I loved seeing Jimmy Stewart go insane with obsession and then get really creepy.
It IS pretty incredible how committed he is to the role throughout that transformation.
THESE 2 GUYS ARE JUST OUT OF A PSYCHIATRIC WARD! VULGAR, CRAZY, SPEAKING NONSENSE, I WON' BE WATCHING TWICE ANOTHER COMMENT BY THEM OF ANY MOVIE WHATSOEVER !
Thank you for watching and for your ongoing support ❤️
~ If it’s holes in the story that bothers you, I would advise you that they exist in prominent form in most all of his films if you even half pay attention ~
Why do you think that is?
I can only go by what he has said about it, that he doesn’t think the holes mean anything much to the point of the story & so treats them as red herrings. While agree that sometimes is the acceptable case, but at other times they stand out like glaring sore thumbs ~
I’m not going to ruin it for you by revealing what I’m referencing if you haven’t yet seen it, but the most glaring example to me was in Dial M For Murder, which nobody seems to notice or mention until I bring it up in discussions like this. But anyway, you’ll come across your share in the viewing, how seriously they affect your enjoyment/appreciation of the films despite this is of course up to you ~
Love the tees, guys!