Reviews by Title:  0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
Reviews by Year:  2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009
Reviews by Rating:  0 star | 0.5 star | 1 star | 1.5 star | 2 star | 2.5 star | 3 star | 3.5 star | 4 star | 4.5 star | 5 star
Vertigo (1958)

Visitor Comments

Re: Vertigo (1958)
Added by Billy Frank   on 2004-04-20 10:05:20

That's the longest freaking review I have ever seen. I stopped after the third paragraph to take a bathroom break!

Re: Vertigo (1958)
Added by John Ulmer   on 2004-04-20 15:18:19

Yes but it's well-written, informative and interesting, Billy. And I agree 100% with its author. Great review!

Re: Vertigo (1958)
Added by Gizmola   on 2004-04-20 23:24:16

I'm not sure this would even be considered a review exactly... more a meditation. Chapters of books, and entire books have already been written on Vertigo. Every major critic has probably already reviewed the film.

I simply hoped to provide some interesting information about it, and in particular highlight the story of the restoration and make people aware of it. Unlike many classic films it's possible for anyone to get their hands on a fantastic version.... simply buy or rent the DvD. There are some revival movie houses that occassionally play the film, and if anyone gets a chance to see it in full 70mm glory... well I can only say run to the theater.

Furthermore, the less said about the plot of the film the better. I'd rather not spoil it for those who might be seeing it for the first time.

Hitchcock at his most sublime!
Added by Tom Muther (email) on 2006-01-22 18:53:30

I found Mr. Rolston's "review" or "meditation" to be generally spot on. I love the film above all others and have waxed (more or less) eloquent on its attributes on the IMDb and other areas to such an extent that some might consider my interest in the film to approach the level of Scottie's obsessional interest in Madeleine. My only quibble with Mr. Rolston's (AKA Gizmola?) comments concern the alleged "many flaws and places where the film now seems camp, in places where it was intended to be serious." I am not one who believes that just because a film has been heralded as an almost unsurpassed masterpiece that it should be excluded from any negative criticisms--I have a few small criticisms of the film myself--but I think some illustration of these flaws would be in order. Also, the reviewer might also have mentioned a little more about the controversy surrounding the restoration of the soundtrack--i.e., that there are some who maintain that the new sound-effects are an inexcusable defacing of this work of art. Still, as my negative thoughts on the film are tiny compared to my overwhelming appreciation of its artistry, so my niggling qualms with the review are small compared with my whole-hearted approval. Cheers!

Add new comment

Comment Title:
All comments are owned by their posters.

Please e-mail with complaints.

Copyright © 2003-2021   All rights reserved.