Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Birds revisited
It's amazing how one's opinions (or taste) about popular culture changes with time. I have always held Alfred Hitchcock to be one of the masters and I have always remembered Birds as a darn good movie, never mind that I last saw it in 1993. So, I picked up the DVD yesterday and boy, what an unbelievably bad movie it was. Completely pointless beyond birds of a feather attacking together. Not much in terms of a plot and tacky special effects that make some of the 1950's Harryhausen movies look positively good (okay, maybe Gollum will seem tacky in 2035 too). What was Hitch thinking when he made this? And why do critics think it is such a good movie? Hell, why did I think it was such a good movie?
Maybe I should watch Psycho or Rear Window and then decide whether I need to reassess my opinion of Hitchcock?
Maybe I should watch Psycho or Rear Window and then decide whether I need to reassess my opinion of Hitchcock?
