Alfred Hitchcock

[Yojimbo]

Just solely based on what I have seen on the screen, top 3 in no order: Notorious, Vertigo, and Shadow of a Doubt. That being said I do love North by Northwest, The 39 Steps, Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, and Psycho. Even his early work like The Man Who Knew Too Much (British version) and Blackmail or Murder were very beautiful looking films and are closely tied with German Expressionist filmmaking qualities. While Rope and Dial M for Murder are not his best, they are still worth a view. Sadly two of his films I have yet to see are Rebecca and Spellbound, which will probably try and watch those of Christmas.

I've long considered 'Rebecca' as more polished Hollywood studio film/woman's film than his later films, beginning with 'Notorious', when he acquired producer status.
Perhaps, despite his status, he was in some way compromised with those first two Hollywood films, in order to gain a foothold.

[Yojimbo]

There are only six Hitchcock films I haven't seen (they're in my kevyip), and nothing quite reaches the lows of To Catch a Thief or Topaz.

'Dial M For Murder' is one of the low-points for me, although John Williams' performance at least makes it watchable

[George Kaplan]

Hitchcock:
1st Tier:
SHADOW OF A DOUBT
NOTORIOUS
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1956)
VERTIGO
NORTH BY NORTHWEST
PSYCHO
THE BIRDS
MARNIE
2nd Tier:
BLACKMAIL [Silent Version]
REAR WINDOW
3rd Tier:
SABOTAGE
UNDER CAPRICORN
THE WRONG MAN
4th Tier:
YOUNG AND INNOCENT
REBECCA
I CONFESS
DIAL M FOR MURDER
THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY
FRENZY
5th Tier:
THE PLEASURE GARDEN
DOWNHILL
THE LODGER
THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934)
SABOTEUR
THE PARADINE CASE
STAGE FRIGHT
TO CATCH A THIEF
TORN CURTAIN
TOPAZ
Followed by the rest...

[psufootball07]

I like your list for the most part, however I would move down The Man Who Knew Too Much and move up the original. I felt Peter Lorre and black/white colors added to the darkness that pervaded the film.

[Yojimbo]

Hitchcock:
1st Tier:
SHADOW OF A DOUBT
NOTORIOUS
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1956)
VERTIGO
NORTH BY NORTHWEST
PSYCHO
THE BIRDS
MARNIE
2nd Tier:
BLACKMAIL [Silent Version]
REAR WINDOW
3rd Tier:
SABOTAGE
UNDER CAPRICORN
THE WRONG MAN
4th Tier:
YOUNG AND INNOCENT
REBECCA
I CONFESS
DIAL M FOR MURDER
THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY
FRENZY
5th Tier:
THE PLEASURE GARDEN
DOWNHILL
THE LODGER
THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934)
SABOTEUR
THE PARADINE CASE
STAGE FRIGHT
TO CATCH A THIEF
TORN CURTAIN
TOPAZ
Followed by the rest...

1st Tier:
NORTH BY NORTHWEST
PSYCHO
VERTIGO
REAR WINDOW
each one of these films is perfection, where technique, pacing, suspense, or blending of comedy/thrills is awe-inspiring

2nd Tier:
NOTORIOUS
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
SHADOW OF A DOUBT
THE LADY VANISHES

outstanding production values, but not quite maintains the levels of the top tier

3rd Tier:
THE BIRDS
THE 39 STEPS
THE WRONG MAN
(outstanding in certain elements, but not in every respect, or something that jars/doesn't quite gell)


4th Tier:
FRENZY
FAMILY PLOT
YOUNG AND INNOCENT
SABOTAGE
(these tend to be either the entertaining, post-peak later films, or the relatively crude early British films)


The above are the Hitchcock films I've seen the most: I've probably seen both 'Vertigo' and 'Psycho' at least 6 times, which is high for me.
The remaining films are probably films I don't remember well enough to rank, or haven't considered worth watching enough times to even consider ranking in the top two tiers: I watched 'Marnie' three times, and don't care for it at all; 'Rebecca' I've just overdosed on.
From memory I think I preferred the b&w version of TMWKTM

[Tommaso]

Yeah, I want to look at that one again: its very doom-laden, almost, dare I say it, Wagnerian doom.

Too much honour for Wagner. I rather thought of Kafka, actually.

More than 'Marnie', which seems to be increasingly championed these days, I definitely think its one of Hitch's most daring films

I'm not a "Marnie" hater or something, but I never quite understood the praise for this film especially. There is little in it thematically that Hitch didn't investigate earlier and in perhaps more convincing ways (the whole psychic illness topic I find is much better treated in "Spellbound" and "Vertigo"), and I simply always found Sean Connery an unconvincing casting decision.

On the other hand, I find a film like "I confess" terribly underrated. There are weaknesses to the script, of course, but Clift's performance is entirely captivating and (more important) believable, and it's one of the few later films by Hitch that uses the expressionist/noir tradition in such a bravura manner. Those opening Quebec shots even evoked some memories of Dreyer for me.

[Yojimbo]

Yeah, I want to look at that one again: its very doom-laden, almost, dare I say it, Wagnerian doom.

Too much honour for Wagner. I rather thought of Kafka, actually.

More than 'Marnie', which seems to be increasingly championed these days, I definitely think its one of Hitch's most daring films

I'm not a "Marnie" hater or something, but I never quite understood the praise for this film especially. There is little in it thematically that Hitch didn't investigate earlier and in perhaps more convincing ways (the whole psychic illness topic I find is much better treated in "Spellbound" and "Vertigo"), and I simply always found Sean Connery an unconvincing casting decision.

On the other hand, I find a film like "I confess" terribly underrated. There are weaknesses to the script, of course, but Clift's performance is entirely captivating and (more important) believable, and it's one of the few later films by Hitch that uses the expressionist/noir tradition in such a bravura manner. Those opening Quebec shots even evoked some memories of Dreyer for me.

I don't think I've actually seen 'I Confess', or watched it all the way through: I'm not normally a fan of Clift, though, or method actors, generally.
Perhaps, given as both it and 'The Wrong Man' are part of the same box-set, I might watch it as part of a 'Catholic guilt' double-bill.

Yeah, 'The Wrong Man' definitely has 'Kafkaesque' elements, but I just recalled Vera Miles as having sunk very low,.....perhaps a 'Bunyanesque' Slough of Despond???

I think the problem I have with 'Marnie' is that I felt Hitch was just trying too hard with it: perhaps he was stung by criticism of him not being 'deep' enough?

[Dr. Snaut]

1st Tier
Psycho
Notorious
The Birds
Vertigo
Spellbound

2nd Tier
Rear Window
Rebecca
Lifeboat
North by Northwest

[domino harvey]

Oh I guess I'll play (American films only):

(BEST)
To Catch a Thief
Rebecca
Saboteur
Dial M for Murder
North by Northwest
Frenzy
Stage Fright
Rope
Lifeboat
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Foreign Correspondent
Notorious
Suspicion
Strangers on a Train
Rear Window
Vertigo
Shadow of a Doubt
The Birds
I Confess
Family Plot
Marnie
The Wrong Man
Torn Curtain
Psycho
Under Capricorn
Spellbound
The Trouble with Harry
The Man Who Knew Too Much
The Paradine Case
Topaz
(WORST)

[ezmbmh]

OK, I'm in.

1-Psycho
2_Vertigo
3-North by Northwest
4-Rear Window
5-Strangers on a Train
6-Shadow of a Doubt
7- Notorious
8- Birds
9-Suspicion
10-Rebecca
11-Foreign Correspondent

These, for what it's worth, I think are top tier movies in any list. Just below are Lifeboat, Saboteur, Marnie, a few others until we get all the way down to the only two I never did get, Topaz and Trouble with Harry. And this list doesn't even include the British masterpieces.

[fiddlesticks]

This is just according to my likes and tastes, and takes no notice of Importance to Cinematic History or other such Weighty Topics. List is limited to the 27 titles I have in my collection.

A+
Notorious
North by Northwest

A
The 39 Steps
Dial M for Murder
Rear Window
To Catch a Thief

B
Foreign Correspondent
Strangers on a Train
I Confess
Psycho
Frenzy

C
The Lady Vanishes
Saboteur
Shadow of a Doubt
Lifeboat
The Wrong Man
Vertigo
The Birds
Family Plot

D
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Spellbound
Rope
Marnie

D-
The Trouble with Harry
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Torn Curtain

F
Topaz

[psufootball07]

Vertigo a C?

Have you even seen it more than once, it is one of those films that grows on you with multiple viewings.

[fiddlesticks]

Have you even seen it more than once, it is one of those films that grows on you with multiple viewings.

Now why didn't I think of that?

When I watch an Acknowledged Masterpiece and it leaves me cold or wondering why everyone loves it so, I will always watch it again, usually several times, and generally will give it another chance when it comes on TV even years later. (I've finally had to swear off giving second chances to Some Like it Hot.) I've probably watched Vertigo at least 5 times intently and I can't guess how many other times in fits and starts. It has not grown on me; quite the opposite. I don't hate it, but neither do I love it. As I said before, YMMV.

[denti alligator]

Alright I'll try this, too. But I'd like domino to tell us why To Catch a Thief is so good. Please give me one reason to watch it a second time!

A+
North by Northwest
Vertigo
Psycho
Notorious
The Lady Vanishes
The Wrong Man
Shadow of a Doubt
Rebecca

(yes I loves me Hitchcock)

A
The Birds
Marnie
Frenzy
The 39 Steps
Blackmail
Rear Window

A-
Dial M for Murder
Strangers on a Train
Foreign Correspondent
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)

B+
The Ring
The Manxman
Family Plot
The Trouble with Harry
Stage Fright
Young and Innocent

B
I Confess
The Lodger
Lifeboat
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Sabotage
Secret Agent
Rope

B-
Under Capricorn
The Paradine Case
Sabateur
Murder!
The Pleasure Garden
Suspicion
Spellbound

C+
Downhill

C
The Skin Game
Torn Curtain

C-
Easy Virtue
Champaigne

D+
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

D
To Catch a Thief

D-
Topaz

(I can't fail Hitch)

[domino harvey]

Alright I'll try this, too. But I'd like domino to tell us why To Catch a Thief is so good. Please give me one reason to watch it a second time!

Everything about the film is so transparently aware of its own superfluousness that in the careless ease in which Hitchcock manipulates the action and the actors, I find the greatest joy of all his work. Some artists reveal their greatest talents in their most tossed off and effortless affairs, and this is the crowning example. That it's nothing more than a filmed vacation shouldn't be the criticism, that should be the defense.

D-
Topaz

(I can't fail Hitch)

Boy, I understand the reverence for the director, but Topaz is the only Hitchcock movie which I find utterly irredeemable-- though you can read Robin Wood's attempt in his Revisited book. Good luck reading through the ink smudged by Wood's sweat though

[Yojimbo]

Alright I'll try this, too. But I'd like domino to tell us why To Catch a Thief is so good. Please give me one reason to watch it a second time!

Everything about the film is so transparently aware of its own superfluousness that in the careless ease in which Hitchcock manipulates the action and the actors, I find the greatest joy of all his work. Some artists reveal their greatest talents in their most tossed off and effortless affairs, and this is the crowning example. That it's nothing more than a filmed vacation shouldn't be the criticism, that should be the defense.

D-
Topaz

(I can't fail Hitch)

Boy, I understand the reverence for the director, but Topaz is the only Hitchcock movie which I find utterly irredeemable-- though you can read Robin Wood's attempt in his Revisited book. Good luck reading through the ink smudged by Wood's sweat though

In your iconoclastic opinion, you're indirectly agreeing with my view of 'Marnie': its the films where he's seen to be trying too hard which are the ones that don't quite come off.

"To Catch a Thief " is light, pleasing entertainment, looks great, and has a too-old but still classy Cary Grant.
But "North by Northwest" has all this and much, much more

[Yojimbo]

Have you even seen it more than once, it is one of those films that grows on you with multiple viewings.

Now why didn't I think of that?

When I watch an Acknowledged Masterpiece and it leaves me cold or wondering why everyone loves it so, I will always watch it again, usually several times, and generally will give it another chance when it comes on TV even years later. (I've finally had to swear off giving second chances to Some Like it Hot.) I've probably watched Vertigo at least 5 times intently and I can't guess how many other times in fits and starts. It has not grown on me; quite the opposite. I don't hate it, but neither do I love it. As I said before, YMMV.

Its not a film to love, probably because its so calculatedly perfect, and because of the cold, calculated nature of James Stewart's character's 'revenge'.
'Psycho' and 'North by Nortwhest' are more 'enjoyable' films, and more entertaining films but if pushed I'd say 'Vertigo' is the greatest of them all.

[Poncho Punch]

I'm with dom on To Catch A Thief. That there are no glaring faults with the film is helpful, but the fact that it's just so damn fun is what I love about it. It's the same reason I love Woo's Once A Thief (which is clearly indebted to Hitchcock's film); for all the-- for some, pretense of-- "heavy" thematic preoccupations in The Killer or Hard-Boiled or Psycho or Vertigo, the sheer amount of energy in these two "light" capers, and the joy that they bring to me when watched or even remembered is fantastic. Hitchcock was no arthouse auteur, he was both a genre filmmaker and very much mainstream, so to slight his lighter films for this just seems silly.

And I'm with you on the placement of Frenzy, too. As humorous and disturbing as anything else he made. While it doesn't carry the stigma among Hitchcock fans that Thief does, and certainly gets praised when spoken of, it is still criminally neglected in favor of the Hollywood-era canon fodder. Saboteur is great, if very propagandistic.

[domino harvey]

And the best To Catch a Thief homage is Chabrol's full-length spiritual possession, Rein Ne Va Plus

[Yojimbo]

I'm with dom on To Catch A Thief. That there are no glaring faults with the film is helpful, but the fact that it's just so damn fun is what I love about it. It's the same reason I love Woo's Once A Thief (which is clearly indebted to Hitchcock's film); for all the-- for some, pretense of-- "heavy" thematic preoccupations in The Killer or Hard-Boiled or Psycho or Vertigo, the sheer amount of energy in these two "light" capers, and the joy that they bring to me when watched or even remembered is fantastic. Hitchcock was no arthouse auteur, he was both a genre filmmaker and very much mainstream, so to slight his lighter films for this just seems silly.

And I'm with you on the placement of Frenzy, too. As humorous and disturbing as anything else he made. While it doesn't carry the stigma among Hitchcock fans that Thief does, and certainly gets praised when spoken of, it is still criminally neglected in favor of the Hollywood-era canon fodder. Saboteur is great, if very propagandistic.

'Frenzy' is a real 'odd-bod': the uncomfortable misogyny of the strangulation scene mixing with the delicious black comedy of John Williams' dinner-table scene and the killer's truck-ride

[Gregory]

Boy, I understand the reverence for the director, but Topaz is the only Hitchcock movie which I find utterly irredeemable-- though you can read Robin Wood's attempt in his Revisited book. Good luck reading through the ink smudged by Wood's sweat though

I remember you brought this up once before, so I'd like to point out that AFAIK Wood never tried to redeem Topaz as a whole. He thinks a few sequences were well done but on the whole is very ambivalent about the film. He acknowledges that many parts of the film are downright bad and that Hitchcock was only loosely engaged with the film.
I find the film difficult to watch for several reasons: aside from it being generally not well executed and apparently not a project with personal significance for Hitchcock, this just isn't a type of film I often appreciate. For every film like Z there are hundreds that are mediocre. Topaz would have been improved by some severe editing, but I don't think even that would have made it anything above an average film (or a below-average film within the oeuvre). Nevertheless, Wood is right to point out that even a movie like Topaz can have excellent sequences, and I appreciate his brief, discerning treatment of the few parts of the film that are well worth watching.

[domino harvey]

Piccoli and Noiret certainly come off the best in Topaz, presumably from their many years of practice in directing themselves in countless prior pictures. But they're basically the sugar coating on the cyanide pill

[Mr Sausage]

The only part of Topaz I even remember, and which made me take any interest, was this one part where someone shoots a woman and, as she falls, the hem of her red dress spreading out on the floor resembles a pool of blood. Marvelous. Otherwise, a very dull movie.

Anyone else noticed how Hitchcock, in Stage Fright, manipulates his audience by manipulating their knowledge of Hitchcock movies? Spoiler: it's the only one of his films in which the wrong man is in fact the right man all along. Hitchcock at his most self-conscious.

[Tommaso]

Anyone else noticed how Hitchcock, in Stage Fright, manipulates his audience by manipulating their knowledge of Hitchcock movies? Spoiler: it's the only one of his films in which the wrong man is in fact the right man all along. Hitchcock at his most self-conscious.

Yes, I quite admired that, though Hitchcock himself was apparently unhappy with the conceit in later years, not to speak of the audience and critics at the time. But the whole film from the beginning plays on the theme of 'theatre' and 'constructed reality', it opens with a theatrical curtain 'revealing' the actual film, and isn't the wrong/right man killed by that self-same curtain in the end (don't remember exactly now). So, as a reminder of how manipulative images can be or always are on film, "Stage Fright" is almost priceless for me. The weaknesses of the film lie elsewhere (it's a bit too long, and some plot points near the end feel pretty forced),

[Yojimbo]

The only part of Topaz I even remember, and which made me take any interest, was this one part where someone shoots a woman and, as she falls, the hem of her red dress spreading out on the floor resembles a pool of blood. Marvelous. Otherwise, a very dull movie.

Anyone else noticed how Hitchcock, in Stage Fright, manipulates his audience by manipulating their knowledge of Hitchcock movies? Spoiler: it's the only one of his films in which the wrong man is in fact the right man all along. Hitchcock at his most self-conscious.

Yep, and anyone else notice the connection between 'Stage Fright' and Mel Brooks' 'Blazing Saddles'?