I luv the cock... wait, that came out wrong...>> ^critical_d:

promote
luv the hitch

Thats not what my mental image was of hitchcock - now i want to learn more

>> ^Peroxide:






*talks

Sort of....this was adapted from a short story by Roald Dahl. The version I first saw was a remake in 1985 for the "New Alfred Hitchcock Presents" that starred John Huston in the Lorre role and Melanie Griffith as the Girl. Tarentino's version refers to the classic Hitchcock episode as the inspiration for the bet...and as you know has a completely different ending then the story it was inspired by. >> ^ctrlaltbleach:

Same bit is used in Quentin Tarantino's Four Rooms.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Well how about the free pass that Bay gets to make the same rock-m-sock-em robot movie over and over. God, if I never see another Transformer again in my life I'll be happy.

I've *at least* mildly enjoyed every Shymalan flick I've seen. (although I have not seen the Airbender movie) My point is that a lot of Directors get a free ride. I wouldn't say that Shymalan is one of them. In fact he seems to be mercilessly mocked and ridiculed. Probably because he puts himself out there - and comparing himself to Hitchcock doesn't help. He's eccentric - and I like him.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^dag:
I'm with you on this one. I would prefer to watch the worst Shymalan movie over the best Michael Bay flick. Somehow Bay gets a free-ride for his CGI splooge fests. At least M. Night's movies focus on story over special effects. And also - Sixth Sense was a sensational movie - he gets a lot of credit from me for that one. >> ^shponglefan:
I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.


while i dont contest your points on michael bay (but really tho, someone has to make the dumbed down, cgi porn, movies that will appease the average movie goer) couldnt one argue that shyalaman was more or less given a free pass to shill out essentially the same movie in a different package over and over and over again. he makes sixth sense, its a smashing success, he's hailed as among the best new filmmakers at the time, everyone and their mom wants to finance his next movie....i dont see a difference

he cites hitchcock and kubrick and in the same breath claims we "dont get him" cuz of cultural differences? american film goers "got" kubrick (mostly). american film goers "got" hitchcock. so whats your fucking excuse again?

as far as The Happening and Hitchcock are concerned, the difference is this: The Birds made me scared of birds, Psycho made me scared to take showers (and of my mother, strangely enough), Rear Window made me paranoid as hell towards my neighbors......The Happening? ya, still not scared of plants....in fact, fuck plants, stupid plants, being all.....planty

he can try and be hitchcock all he wants but he's always gonna fall desperately short

>> ^packo:

>> ^Jinx:
I actually quite liked Lady in the Water...Maybe I'll watch it again someday I wonder what I was thinkin.
But yah. Airbender. Wow was that shit. I've seen better on straight to DVD. I think my favorite bit was the romance between that little ice princess and some guy which goes from first meeting, to love at first to her giving her life in about 6 seconds flat. Yes the acting was terrible, but so was everything else. Literally everything...oh the effects were ok!
The Happening was worse tho. Nothing happened. Well some trees shook in the wind and people went suicidal. The End.

because audiences have too much ADD to enjoy a story where danger literally surrounds you, but doesn't come in the form of a CGI-alien or explosion... how do you fight plant life? or bacteria? or viruses?
in a movie that is hard... the brain dead way (pun) is to use zombies... then we can alleviate some of that ADD with boo scare factor
literally people have to stop going to his films expecting summer blockbusters... and have to start looking at the characterization more... he's not aiming for highbrow, and too many lowbrow seem to go to his movies and get pissed... he wants you to invest a bit into the movie, not just be taken for a pants wetting ride
the same people (i've found anyhoos) who detest his movies, find Hitchcock to be boring as well... I'm not saying MNS and HC are on the same level... but there's definitely some stylistic overlap...
you get out what you put in... if you have nothing to put in, there's plenty of summer blockbusters to for you... you can drool over Megan Fox (or her replacement) and then drool over how cool the transformers look and come out feeling like you spent your money well... but hardly as though you've been challenged as a viewer... beyond eye strain I suppose


from someone who finds hitchcocks approach fascinating, shyalaman is a fucking dumbass

Hi M. Night!

>> ^packo:


because audiences have too much ADD to enjoy a story where danger literally surrounds you, but doesn't come in the form of a CGI-alien or explosion... how do you fight plant life? or bacteria? or viruses?
in a movie that is hard... the brain dead way (pun) is to use zombies... then we can alleviate some of that ADD with boo scare factor
literally people have to stop going to his films expecting summer blockbusters... and have to start looking at the characterization more... he's not aiming for highbrow, and too many lowbrow seem to go to his movies and get pissed... he wants you to invest a bit into the movie, not just be taken for a pants wetting ride
the same people (i've found anyhoos) who detest his movies, find Hitchcock to be boring as well... I'm not saying MNS and HC are on the same level... but there's definitely some stylistic overlap...
you get out what you put in... if you have nothing to put in, there's plenty of summer blockbusters to for you... you can drool over Megan Fox (or her replacement) and then drool over how cool the transformers look and come out feeling like you spent your money well... but hardly as though you've been challenged as a viewer... beyond eye strain I suppose

Dude... if Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and Kubrick are your teachers, then perhaps you need to become a more attentive student!

Their movies don't SUCK as a matter of principle.

>> ^Jinx:

I actually quite liked Lady in the Water...Maybe I'll watch it again someday I wonder what I was thinkin.
But yah. Airbender. Wow was that shit. I've seen better on straight to DVD. I think my favorite bit was the romance between that little ice princess and some guy which goes from first meeting, to love at first to her giving her life in about 6 seconds flat. Yes the acting was terrible, but so was everything else. Literally everything...oh the effects were ok!
The Happening was worse tho. Nothing happened. Well some trees shook in the wind and people went suicidal. The End.


because audiences have too much ADD to enjoy a story where danger literally surrounds you, but doesn't come in the form of a CGI-alien or explosion... how do you fight plant life? or bacteria? or viruses?

in a movie that is hard... the brain dead way (pun) is to use zombies... then we can alleviate some of that ADD with boo scare factor

literally people have to stop going to his films expecting summer blockbusters... and have to start looking at the characterization more... he's not aiming for highbrow, and too many lowbrow seem to go to his movies and get pissed... he wants you to invest a bit into the movie, not just be taken for a pants wetting ride

the same people (i've found anyhoos) who detest his movies, find Hitchcock to be boring as well... I'm not saying MNS and HC are on the same level... but there's definitely some stylistic overlap...

you get out what you put in... if you have nothing to put in, there's plenty of summer blockbusters to for you... you can drool over Megan Fox (or her replacement) and then drool over how cool the transformers look and come out feeling like you spent your money well... but hardly as though you've been challenged as a viewer... beyond eye strain I suppose

This can't be real. I highly doubt Alfred Hitchcock and Cecil B DeMille had anything to do with this.

In fact, that footage looks too clean and sharp to be from the 50s. I say this has been recently made by someone and engineered (with filters, etc) to make it look old. It's well done, but definitely not real.

And Bob Dylan is so over the top (even for the 50s) it's laughable.

Fakey McFake to the extreme. This looks like it was shot on video/digitally and made to look like film. Plus, Alfred Hitchcock was pretty much never a credited writer on anything and certainly wouldn't put his name on something this terrible. Seriously, of all the people they could have picked to have supposedly written this, they pick Hitchcock? That gives it away as a fake pretty much immediately.

It's a vaguely credible forgery (whoever they got to do the narration goes a long way towards selling it), but it's definitely a forgery.

Alfred Hitchcock was ahead of his time...

If he says it's evil then by god you can bet your life it is.


Genius

Albert Hitchcock?

Ask Alfred Einstein, I'll bet he knows what happened.