I just....felt unsatisfied. I felt like it was leading up to something but the end came as unexpectedly as....well pretty much nothing else in the film because it was all quite predictable. A lot of it makes no sense, such as the motivation of these avian attacks to begin with or why this guy just casually invited someone who stalked him out of the city for dinner and it lacked any form of resolution or explanation, the ending just seemed lazy. It made me very angry. Some bits did not add up at all (that murder of crows that attacked the schoolchildren just let that group of three people walk right by them despite them making just about the same ammount of noise. Or why all those birds suddenly switched from looming over the town to perching all over the protagonists' boyfriends house.) The pace was pretty slow at the start (it was more of a romance movie than a thriller, though there were some hints here and there of what the future held but all in all though it wasn't very.... thrilling. Or scary or anything. Just mildly interesting. Heck it might've been more interesting if it went in a completely different way (like maybe the protagonist turning out to be evil or a serial killer or perhaps a few of the townspeople like that dude's ex or mom) but still interesting just....the ending was too abrupt I felt it had a pretty good scare left in it (The end built it up so much) but that never happened (biggest movie tease) so I was left feeling a bit disappointed and filled with all these random questions.
This is suspense at its finest, along with Psycho as well. The thought of turning everyday species into deadly killing machines is an amazing idea. Nevertheless, the film also has an eerieness to it, which the audience feel as the birds slowly form a group ready to unleash their next attack, a must watch if a Hitchcock fan.
Though The Birds is an iconic, memorable Hitchcock film, I don't count it as one of the greats. Sure, I admire the effects and bird-handling achievement, but the crash of genres, something Hitch has successfully done before, doesn't work here. It starts out as a romantic comedy in which a woman follows a handsome stranger she met in a pet shop, to a coastal town to give him love birds and hopefully make a love connection. Then the birds (but never the love birds) attack without explanation, and attack her specifically, and her location numerous times, though she isn't the only victim. And through adversity, just trying to survive as the town is besieged, she gains the family she never had, and is accepted into her beau's. It's a good character arc, but one hidden under crazy bird attacks and reaction shots of horror that would frankly fit better in a comedy. If it's Hitch's gallows humor, it's way over the top and into cartoon territory. And then the movie just ends. Some would say eerily, but you'd be just as right to say unsatisfactorily. Because the real story is under the action, I dare say The Birds gets better with multiple viewings, but I'd seen it on TV 20 years ago and that was too long ago to really appreciate it that way.
Probably my least favorite Hitchcock out of the 11 that I've seen. A tacky premise held up by a plot that just didn't make a whole lot of sense. I didn't understand any of those characters or their motivations. I kept having to ask myself throughout the movie, "Did this action make more sense in 1963? Did this character seem authentic in 1963?" I'll never know, but by my present perception of reality and art that was just an asinine production from beginning to end.
I'm still however and always will be a sucker for Hitchcock in technicolor. Dat cozy aesthetic.
It's not really a horror movie any more - it's kind of a comedy. Pay close attention to the demon kids in the schoolhouse that sing with their minds - their lips don't move!
Like Hitchcock's best work, "The Birds" slowly tightens the suspense through those long, lingering, curious shots of the first half hour. A very pleasant journey out of the city turns horribly wrong when birds start attacking the townsfolk.
Mediocre acting by the supporting actors and some illogical character motivation aside, "The Birds" does deliver on the classic Hitchcock thrills. The premise first seems funny, then weird, then truly chilling as you realize just how far the violence will go.
One that will stay with you. The Birds is an excellent, engrossing horror film that seems ahead of its time in some ways, but also oddly old-fashioned and campy in others.
@mittens
"i dont know about you, but a zombie apocalypse seems more scary than a bird apocalypse"
That may be true, but this film was made before the idea of a zombie apocalypse existed. Most early zombie films centered around the idea that zombies were living people controlled by some kind of voodoo witch doctor. The idea of large amounts of the dead coming back to life to kill people did not enter popular consciousness until 1968, with Night of the Living Dead, which was released five years after this film. I might even argue that NOTLD may never have existed were it not for this film influencing it (along with 1964's The Last Man on Earth.)
More than a lot of other genres, Horror relies heavily on context, because what is frightening and the ways that frightening images are assembled has changed drastically over the course of film history. If you feel the film (or any older horror film) is not frightening to you, maybe you could try this: Imagine that you are in one of the first theatrical showings of the film. Have you, or anyone there with you, seen anything like this before? When you compare it to other films of the era, is it scarier than most?
If I were to compare it within a list of other popular horror films made in 1963, how would it fare? Here is such a list:
The Birds
Blood Feast
The Comedy of Terrors
Dementia 13
The Whip and the Body
The Haunted Palace
The Haunting
Black Sabbath
The Kiss of the Vampire
Matango
Paranoiac
The Evil Eye
The Raven
The Sadist
X: The Man with X-Ray Eyes
While I love most of the films in the list above, only Robert Wise's The Haunting is able to hold its own when compared to The Birds in terms of influence, scares and an overall level of genuine quality, be it in front of or behind the camera. This is all just my own opinion of course.
To get back to your comment, I can't argue with you that the notion of a zombie apocalypse is probably more frightening than the idea of a bird apocalypse. My level of enthusiasm over Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead is probably about equal to that of The Birds. Think about it this way though: There are somewhere between 100 and 400 billion birds on earth. If they all decided to attack tomorrow, would we stand a chance? Our chances would probably be the same as if there were a real zombie outbreak.
Also: I know your comment is three years old and you probably won't ever read this but I just wanted to write a little about the film, its context and its influence.
Some of the scenes are fantastic, but unfortunately some unintentionally funny reaction shots and poor acting by some (like the little girl) drags it down. Still a good movie though.
I always think of this film as a kind of zombie apocalypse movie except without the zombies, or the decent character development, or a plot that makes some degree of sense. I mean Hitchcock is my all-time fave director but this one just seems off. Jamaica Inn and Rebecca were both stories by Dame Daphne du Maurier and both were adapted to the screen by old Hitch. The Birds is his third stab at the same author's material and just feels like a lackluster short story given the big screen treatment. The suspense is very real, but builds towards a disappointing climax, although the attack on the house at night is expertly choreographed and filmed which makes it easily the best part of the film. Overall the film is simply incongruous with the material of the same man that gave us Psycho or Rear Window.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 34
sweeety
I just....felt unsatisfied. I felt like it was leading up to something but the end came as unexpectedly as....well pretty much nothing else in the film because it was all quite predictable. A lot of it makes no sense, such as the motivation of these avian attacks to begin with or why this guy just casually invited someone who stalked him out of the city for dinner and it lacked any form of resolution or explanation, the ending just seemed lazy. It made me very angry. Some bits did not add up at all (that murder of crows that attacked the schoolchildren just let that group of three people walk right by them despite them making just about the same ammount of noise. Or why all those birds suddenly switched from looming over the town to perching all over the protagonists' boyfriends house.) The pace was pretty slow at the start (it was more of a romance movie than a thriller, though there were some hints here and there of what the future held but all in all though it wasn't very.... thrilling. Or scary or anything. Just mildly interesting. Heck it might've been more interesting if it went in a completely different way (like maybe the protagonist turning out to be evil or a serial killer or perhaps a few of the townspeople like that dude's ex or mom) but still interesting just....the ending was too abrupt I felt it had a pretty good scare left in it (The end built it up so much) but that never happened (biggest movie tease) so I was left feeling a bit disappointed and filled with all these random questions.Dewsions
This is suspense at its finest, along with Psycho as well. The thought of turning everyday species into deadly killing machines is an amazing idea. Nevertheless, the film also has an eerieness to it, which the audience feel as the birds slowly form a group ready to unleash their next attack, a must watch if a Hitchcock fan.Dieguito
Not close to Hitchcock's 5 best movies, but the most famous after Psycho, never understood why..Siskoid
Though The Birds is an iconic, memorable Hitchcock film, I don't count it as one of the greats. Sure, I admire the effects and bird-handling achievement, but the crash of genres, something Hitch has successfully done before, doesn't work here. It starts out as a romantic comedy in which a woman follows a handsome stranger she met in a pet shop, to a coastal town to give him love birds and hopefully make a love connection. Then the birds (but never the love birds) attack without explanation, and attack her specifically, and her location numerous times, though she isn't the only victim. And through adversity, just trying to survive as the town is besieged, she gains the family she never had, and is accepted into her beau's. It's a good character arc, but one hidden under crazy bird attacks and reaction shots of horror that would frankly fit better in a comedy. If it's Hitch's gallows humor, it's way over the top and into cartoon territory. And then the movie just ends. Some would say eerily, but you'd be just as right to say unsatisfactorily. Because the real story is under the action, I dare say The Birds gets better with multiple viewings, but I'd seen it on TV 20 years ago and that was too long ago to really appreciate it that way.devilsadvocado
Probably my least favorite Hitchcock out of the 11 that I've seen. A tacky premise held up by a plot that just didn't make a whole lot of sense. I didn't understand any of those characters or their motivations. I kept having to ask myself throughout the movie, "Did this action make more sense in 1963? Did this character seem authentic in 1963?" I'll never know, but by my present perception of reality and art that was just an asinine production from beginning to end.I'm still however and always will be a sucker for Hitchcock in technicolor. Dat cozy aesthetic.
Marazmatique
"There is at least a hundred killer birds perched right outside the school. Let's take all the kids out into the open!"Also imagine the woman's obsessive, creepy, stalking behavior displayed at the beginning of the movie, but done by a man. Disturbing.
stellaslove
Hitchcock definitely has better films than this one. Slow beginning, terrible ending.porscheguy19
It's not really a horror movie any more - it's kind of a comedy. Pay close attention to the demon kids in the schoolhouse that sing with their minds - their lips don't move!frankqb
Like Hitchcock's best work, "The Birds" slowly tightens the suspense through those long, lingering, curious shots of the first half hour. A very pleasant journey out of the city turns horribly wrong when birds start attacking the townsfolk.Mediocre acting by the supporting actors and some illogical character motivation aside, "The Birds" does deliver on the classic Hitchcock thrills. The premise first seems funny, then weird, then truly chilling as you realize just how far the violence will go.
One that will stay with you. The Birds is an excellent, engrossing horror film that seems ahead of its time in some ways, but also oddly old-fashioned and campy in others.
lionel42
Surprisingly funny. Not scary at all, I don't know about 1963.essaywhu
@mittens"i dont know about you, but a zombie apocalypse seems more scary than a bird apocalypse"
That may be true, but this film was made before the idea of a zombie apocalypse existed. Most early zombie films centered around the idea that zombies were living people controlled by some kind of voodoo witch doctor. The idea of large amounts of the dead coming back to life to kill people did not enter popular consciousness until 1968, with Night of the Living Dead, which was released five years after this film. I might even argue that NOTLD may never have existed were it not for this film influencing it (along with 1964's The Last Man on Earth.)
More than a lot of other genres, Horror relies heavily on context, because what is frightening and the ways that frightening images are assembled has changed drastically over the course of film history. If you feel the film (or any older horror film) is not frightening to you, maybe you could try this: Imagine that you are in one of the first theatrical showings of the film. Have you, or anyone there with you, seen anything like this before? When you compare it to other films of the era, is it scarier than most?
If I were to compare it within a list of other popular horror films made in 1963, how would it fare? Here is such a list:
The Birds
Blood Feast
The Comedy of Terrors
Dementia 13
The Whip and the Body
The Haunted Palace
The Haunting
Black Sabbath
The Kiss of the Vampire
Matango
Paranoiac
The Evil Eye
The Raven
The Sadist
X: The Man with X-Ray Eyes
While I love most of the films in the list above, only Robert Wise's The Haunting is able to hold its own when compared to The Birds in terms of influence, scares and an overall level of genuine quality, be it in front of or behind the camera. This is all just my own opinion of course.
To get back to your comment, I can't argue with you that the notion of a zombie apocalypse is probably more frightening than the idea of a bird apocalypse. My level of enthusiasm over Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead is probably about equal to that of The Birds. Think about it this way though: There are somewhere between 100 and 400 billion birds on earth. If they all decided to attack tomorrow, would we stand a chance? Our chances would probably be the same as if there were a real zombie outbreak.
Also: I know your comment is three years old and you probably won't ever read this but I just wanted to write a little about the film, its context and its influence.
sureup
Some of the scenes are fantastic, but unfortunately some unintentionally funny reaction shots and poor acting by some (like the little girl) drags it down. Still a good movie though.Troublenight
not Hitchcock's best moviekrisflushednemo
I just finished watching this. Definitely not his best.DisneyStitch
I always think of this film as a kind of zombie apocalypse movie except without the zombies, or the decent character development, or a plot that makes some degree of sense. I mean Hitchcock is my all-time fave director but this one just seems off. Jamaica Inn and Rebecca were both stories by Dame Daphne du Maurier and both were adapted to the screen by old Hitch. The Birds is his third stab at the same author's material and just feels like a lackluster short story given the big screen treatment. The suspense is very real, but builds towards a disappointing climax, although the attack on the house at night is expertly choreographed and filmed which makes it easily the best part of the film. Overall the film is simply incongruous with the material of the same man that gave us Psycho or Rear Window.Showing items 1 – 15 of 34