Universal: Alfred Hitchcock: The Masterpiece Collection

Message

Haggai · #101 Post by **Haggai** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:55 pm

I don't think any of those alternate endings would have changed things all that much. It's either for Topaz or Torn Curtain--don't remember which one offhand--where in the DVD featurette, they show a few reaction cards from a preview screening, and in one of them, the question of "Which scenes, if any, should be cut?" (or something like that) led to a response of "The entire movie!!" LOL.

#102 Post by **domino harvey** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:37 pm

The only worthwhile thing in Topaz is watching real actors like Noiret and Piccoli direct themselves and show up everyone else in the film by rising above the material. And yeah, all of the alternative and existing endings are dreadful.

Svevan · #103 Post by **Svevan** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:44 pm

Varying levels of dreadful: the duel is much better than the hero and the villain glimpsing each other on a plane, and waving as if "ha ha, none of it mattered!"

I don't know why I'm set on defending the duel ending though - perhaps I felt so cheated by the rest of the film, knowing that there was a slightly better ending that wasn't presented as part of the existing film was just the twist of the knife.

Joe Buck · #104 Post by **Joe Buck** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:50 pm

The sequence in the hotel with Roscoe Lee Browne is the only part of the movie I give a fig about. When I first saw it I was hoping the film was going to get good with his arrival, but sadly he came, he went, and the film sent me back into my slumber.

I like Torn Curtain. Always have. Not a fan of Marnie, though.

#105 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:24 pm

Joe Buck wrote: Not a fan of Marnie, though.

Robin Wood just keeled over

Haggai · #106 Post by **Haggai** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:43 pm

A lot of academics seem to be huge fans of Marnie. I have one anthology of Hitchcock essays that includes a transcript of Jay Presson Allen speaking at a conference of Hitchcock scholars, and they all trip over themselves to praise it to her. Not just Wood, but also Slavoj Zizek and other people of that prominence.

My own take is that the first half of Marnie is excellent, but the second half is bogged down by all that psychobabble, to the point that the melodrama becomes more tiresome than thrilling.

#107 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:49 pm

I'm still sporadically reading Wood's Hitchcock Revisited but for all his transparent rescuing, he still skips over the Hitchcock films I find most interesting and, unsurprisingly, least-discussed.

Haggai · #108 Post by **Haggai** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:52 pm

Which interesting/least-discussed films do you have in mind?

I guess people don't discuss Under Capricorn very much...albeit with ample justification.

#109 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:12 pm

The same dismissive party line always gets repeated on films like To Catch a Thief, Family Plot, Mr and Mrs Smith, Suspicion &c-- no one really needs another fifty pages on Psycho.

Chabrol and Rohmer found Under Capricorn to be Hitchcock's best film-- and they also hated Lifeboat and considered the Trouble With Harry to be proof of Hitchcock's genius! Their book is beyond worthless and I hope it just lost something in translation, as there are numerous errors about the films under discussion and nonsensical arguments, even for Cahiers critics!

sevenarts · #110 Post by **sevenarts** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:06 pm

I don't know what the Cahiers critics said about it, but I have no problem saying that The Trouble With Harry is one of Hitchcock's best films. It's definitely brilliant and as far as under-discussed Hitch goes, I'd love to see more attention lavished on that one in particular. Proof of his genius, indeed. And at the risk of agreeing with Cahiers too much, I'll say that Lifeboat is one of my least favorite Hitchcocks -- too stagy, too obvious, too much hammy acting. It's not terrible, and it has its moments, but it's definitely a lower tier for him.

I'd also agree that To Catch a Thief is a much better film than it's given credit for. It's a lot of fun, and it's great to see everyone involved in such an obviously relaxed, laidback mood, enjoying the atmosphere, the gorgeous scenery, and the glamorous games of dress-up. The famous fireworks/kiss sequence is one of Hitch's best romantic scenes, as well as a fine visual joke. It's a pure celebration of elegance and style.

#111 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:14 pm

The Trouble With Harry is one joke that's not very funny retold over and over for two hours and shot like it was made for TV. At the risk of derailing the thread, To Catch a Thief is for me easily his best film.

Haggai · #112 Post by **Haggai** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:17 pm

I've never been a fan of Trouble With Harry, but it does seem to be well-liked among most Hitch fans, as far as I've always been able to tell (well, maybe not domino!). I like Lifeboat quite a bit, although it is pretty hammy at times, and I can see why it's not everyone's cup of tea.

I think To Catch a Thief is a bit sillier and more nonsensical than it needed to be, but my estimation for it grew thanks to the upgraded transfer on the most recent DVD release. It really is a stunningly great film just to look at.

If there's any Hitch film that could possibly be considered "underrated" that I'll always stand by, it's Foreign Correspondent. There's a lot of ridiculous stuff in it, even for a Hitchcock chase film, plus at least one egregious plot device that's hard to forgive (the "double" for the ambassador), but I'll be damned if I don't love almost every minute of it each time I see it.

Svevan · #113 Post by **Svevan** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:19 pm

domino harvey wrote:At the risk of derailing the thread, To Catch a Thief is for me easily his best film.

I'd like to start a new thread just to discuss what you could possibly mean by that.

I'll agree that the film is under-discussed, but it is certainly not under-appreciated by Hitchcock fans and psuedo-scholars, something that I just don't get.

#114 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:19 pm

The last twenty minutes or so of Foreign Correspondent are genius, certainly the ballsiest tonal shift of Hitchcock's career.

tryavna · #115 Post by **tryavna** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:14 pm

domino harvey wrote:The last twenty minutes or so of Foreign Correspondent are genius, certainly the ballsiest tonal shift of Hitchcock's career.

Amen!

To me, Foreign Correspondent is the closest Hitch ever got to reproducing his British style/tone in Hollywood (in the same sort of way that Lang did in Hangmen Also Die). Since I love Hitch's more glib British films, Foreign Correspondent holds a special place in my heart. Plus, it's got both Herbert Marshall and Edmund Gwenn as baddies!

HerrSchreck · #116 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:02 pm

Wait a minute. H Marshall and G Sanders are in the same movie? Is Tim Conway there too?

Aristocratic Baritone Olympics!

tryavna · #117 Post by **tryavna** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:57 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Wait a minute. H Marshall and G Sanders are in the same movie? Is Tim Conway there too?

Aristocratic Baritone Olympics!

I know you meant Sanders' brother Tom Conway, Schreck. But the typo is hilarious. Tim Conway may have his own special genius, but an "aristocratic baritone" he certainly ain't!

George Kaplan · #118 Post by **George Kaplan** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:14 am

davidhare wrote:The only distinguished baritone to remain unmentioned is Lauren Bacall.

Ahem, distinguished baritone! Like Joan Greenwood.

Daliah Lavi · #119 Post by **Daliah Lavi** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:41 pm

Dear all,

May I draw your attention to my post on this thread regarding the US censor cuts to Psycho...

We'd be most grateful if someone, could check their current 16x9 R1 edition to see if the footage as highlighted here Has in fact been restored?

ianthemovie · #120 Post by **ianthemovie** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:29 pm

Is this box set now obsolete? I got this as a Christmas gift and am contemplating selling it, as I already own nearly all of these films in what appear to me to be comparable or superior editions. The Legacy editions of Rear Window, Vertigo, and Psycho are as good or better than the editions here; I already own what appear to be are identical versions of Man Who Knew Too Much, Rope, and Frenzy (released singly after this box came out); and these look to be the exact same prints of Shadow of a Doubt, The Birds, and Marnie from way back in 2000 or whenever Universal first put them out with no visible improvement or restoration work.

I don't own the other five films and am tempted to keep this set just for that reason, but it seems pointless to hang on to a huge box of discs that are no better than the ones I already own just for the sake of Trouble with Harry and Saboteur. Any reason why I should hang on to this? Are the prints of any of these films so good that they're worth keeping? Basically, unless the prints of The Birds, Marnie, and Shadow of a Doubt are better than the original editions from c. 2000, I don't see any real reason to keep this box, and according to the comparisons on Beaver they look the same.

videozor · #121 Post by **videozor** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:31 pm

The only reason to keep it is the remastered disk of The Birds and the disk of suppliments that actually includes the documentary related to this film (was on the same disk as the movie in the original issue) and some other extras.

Had they released The Birds as a 2-discer in the Legacy series (as Rear Window, Vertigo and Psycho) or on a new single disk (as all the rest from the box) the box would be osolite, since this movie is the only one never re-issued.

I would myself appriciate somebody updating on the Universal's plans about The Birds re-issue...

#122 Post by **Finch** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:08 pm

Also, the Legacy reissue of Vertigo does not have the mono soundtrack while the disc in the set does.

ianthemovie · #123 Post by **ianthemovie** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:44 am

Thanks...sorting out all of these editions can be confusing. I also checked out the screenshot comparisons on the HitchcockWiki, and the editions of The Birds and Marnie in this box do appear to be noticeably superior in color and sharpness to the previous editions from c. 2000, especially Marnie. They are still not perfect but they appear to be the best that we've got for now. So I guess I will hang on to this box, after all...plus, I'll now have Saboteur and The Trouble With Harry (along with Family Plot, Torn Curtain, and Topaz, but those don't mean much to me). I just wish that we could actually get definitive editions of these films that would settle these comparison issues. Maybe on Blu-ray?

#124 Post by **mfunk9786** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:49 am

Universal has been the most scattershot and misguided major studio so far, Blu-wise. So I wouldn't expect any of these films in Blu-Ray anytime soon. Kind of a blessing in disguise, considering their awful menu design they currently use for every one of their Blu-Ray releases.

The Elegant Dandy Fop · Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:27 am

mfunk9786 wrote:Universal has been the most scattershot and misguided major studio so far, Blu-wise. So I wouldn't expect any of these films in Blu-Ray anytime soon. Kind of a blessing in disguise, considering their awful menu design they currently use for every one of their Blu-Ray releases.

When the HD format war ended, they were stuck with the losing team and had to scramble to make an attempt to get into the Blu-Ray market. They don't seem to want to dip their toes into their classic film catalog and put any out on Blu-Ray.

Those menus are very ugly though. Plus it's irritating that each Universal disc installs information into my PS3 harddrive.

Site Menu