Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Robert J. Maxwell Ted Haimes put together this tribute to a fine film maker. It's narrated by Kevin Spacey, and there are interpolated comments from Alfred Hitchcock's stars, co-workers, relatives and friends like Janet Leigh, Norman Lloyd, Joseph Stefano, John Michael Hayes, and Peter Bogdanovich.The comments are brief and informative. Most of the screen time is given over to Hitchcock's home movies, still photos, and clips from his better-known movies.Among the subjects given more extensive treatment are "Rear Window," "The Birds," "Shadow of a Doubt," and examples of Hitchcock's skill as an entertainer and self promoter, especially his appearances on "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." Appearing on television, in the 1950s, was considered something of a demotion for a movie director. The guy must be in decline if he's desperate enough to appear on the small screen, right? Can you imagine something along the lines of "John Ford Presents"? And yet, for all the show biz elements of his television show, it worked. It was successful even though he only directed a dozen or so episodes, and even though the material for his irreverent framing announcements were written by someone else. By this time he was as much a public figure as his movies. He was recognizable and, probably more important to him, merchandisable. By selling himself he made Alfred Hitchcock the instrument for the sale of his products.What a complicated man he was. The movie soft pedals his human weaknesses and, since it's a paean to Hitch, he is presented as a genius in touch with our innermost fears. A genius, no doubt, and an artist. Also, in the end, an abject alcoholic, a stingy man ("mean" in Britain), uncomfortable with either expressing or accepting affection or dissent, and obsessed with lurid fantasies. I doubt that the documentary would have been a lesser piece if it had mentioned some of these devalued habits.But, perhaps, that's a different kind of documentary. This one is splendidly written. It doesn't talk down to the audience, doesn't treat them as children. Not once is Hitchcock referred to as "the master of suspense." Thank Bog. I don't know if we would want to change places with Hitchcock. He earned world-wide acclaim, but his tormented soul inhabited a most unprepossessing body with compulsive traits. At the same time, I'm sure he would happily have traded places with Cary Grant.

Patrick Védie Not only a good glimpse at the legendary works of the Master of Suspense, this documentary, which, had it been a series, could have focused on more films, but a more modern approach that does not only repeat what Hitchcock declared himself about his movies in the famous Truffaut book. It is a very good lesson to all those who still consider Hitch only from that point of view. One of the film's greatest pleasures - one only wishes we had been given more of it - is to watch all those modern directors (who mainly started their career years after Hitchcock had died) explain the different movies and what they meant to them. Seeing, among others, Bryan Singer getting quite excited when explaining the bird's first attack on Bodega Bay is inspiring...should not every film fan and, even more, every director have the same light in his eyes when being allowed to speak about the classics, or movies in general?

jotix100 Ted Haimes' subject for this fantastic documentary is the legendary Alfred Hitchcock, who had a long and distinguished career as a film director. He gave the English and American cinemas some of the best movies during the first three quarters of the twentieth century. Mr. Haimes takes us to examine the life and the genius of Alfred Hitchcock.We are introduced to people that worked with Mr. Hitchcock, like Farley Granger, Tippi Hedren, Teresa Wright, Janet Leigh, among others, and people that admired and were influenced by the man himself such as Robert Altman, Peter Bogdanovich, Robert Bayer, Wes Craven, Curtis Hansen, Brian DePalma, Jonathan Demme and Joseph Stefano, among others.The first part of the documentary deals with his early years in London. We are given a good account of how this great man worked during those first years and later on, as he came to Hollywood. Mr. Hitchcock's collaboration with Alma Reville, his wife, is one of the things that comes across as what made him get involved in projects because it was Ms. Reville who had a critical eye and saw where the best opportunities were for her husband to excel. We also hear from his daughter Pat, who followed her father's career closely.Two of the films that are given more time are "Vertigo" and "Psycho", both considered by most of the guests that speak in the film as two of the most accomplished movies of Hitchcock's career. They are examined with great care and analyzed with a great deal of intelligence, especially by Joseph Stefano, the screen writer of "Psycho". Credit is also given to Hitchcock's association with Bernard Herrmann who composed some of the best scores for the master's films. In fact, collaboration seems to be at the center of everything this great man did, which denotes the intelligence of Hitchcock since he clearly understood that movie making is a collaborative process.Thanks to Mr. Haimes for this most informative account on the life of a true genius: Alfred Hitchcock!

Charles Herold (cherold) This might be a fine documentary to watch if you've never seen anything at all on Hitchcock before; it gives you the basic facts and a chronology of his career and all that. But for anyone with any actual familiarity with Hitchcock, this will all have been seen before.This documentary is basically a pedestrian retelling of Hitchcock's film life. It rarely dips beneath the surface. Surprisingly, the most interesting comments on Hitchcock's approach to film are made not by the directors and academicians but by actresses who have worked with him. But the documentary fails to shed any light on what makes Hitchcock important, or give any insights into his artistry. It just tells you he is important and artistic.I wouldn't say this was without any merit at all. There is an occasional interesting comment, or brief snippet of film, that is worthwhile. But it is very weak.