MovieChat Forums > Spellbound (1945) Discussion > Guys,this was a masterpiece!!!!!!!

Guys,this was a masterpiece!!!!!!!

posted 17 years ago by armagezon
8 replies | jump to latest

I watched the movie mainly due to Ingrid and also because it was Hitc's. I had heard it was a good movie,but not the crazy comments of other Hitch films like Rear Window or Notorious.But, guys, this was a masterpiece!!!Alfred did an excellent directing and i have to say that in the last scenes real shivers went down my spine!Truly, i was holding my breath and i could'n believe it!!Along with Rebecca , Psycho and Vertigo, Spellbound is the best of Hitchcock and i wonder why it isn't in top250!!!!

pacino,nicholson,deniro,hanks in a movie by scorcese,written by tarantino...am i asking too much?

[–] MissMargoChanning 16 years ago

I did'n't enjoy this one very much. I love the cast, but not the psycho babble.
This is one of the few Hitchcock films that I hadn't seen before seeing Mel Brook's High Anxiety in the late 1970's. I saw many of the references to Hitchcock's movies in that, and felt it was a very funny homage to the great director. I finally saw Spellbound in the late 1990's. I'm in my 50's, and I thought I had seen all of his films, but I missed this one. I finally got what Mel brooks had done in his comedy. I suppose that if I had seen this before High anxiety, I would have felt differently about this film, but I can't help laughing at it today.

Fasten your seatbelts.... It's going to be a bumpy night!

[–] franzkabuki 16 years ago

"Ingrid"? "Alfred"? Did you like know them personally? Sandbox buddies?

Anyway, this is probably the most ludicrous film Hitchcock ever made. He may have made excuses all he wanted that it´s "only a film", but the avelanche of totally ridiculous psychobabble overwhelms any trace of suspense almost completely - and to its audiences it was quite obviously supposed to appear "sophisticated" - at least I didn´t manage to detect any satirical overtones in all that bullsh-t they were jabbering about. He really should have known better as he proved totally incapable of penetrating his character´s psychology, boiling everything down to some simplistic formulas of coffee table freudism (not that the "real" freudism wasn´t often rather preposterous itself). Of course, this wasn´t his last misstep of the sort - Marnie went off track the same way; it just was a more adventurous affair, more entertaining. Hitchcock definitely was better when communicating psychological traits by more indirect or visual means instead of giving his audience some phony lectures on subjects he didn´t know too much about himself (the ending monologue in Psycho was also a woeful ending to an otherwise superb film).

[–] MissMargoChanning 16 years ago

I get the feeling, after reading the posts on this thread, that you were replying to the OP. (original poster.) You replied to me instead.

There is a reply box in the upper right hand corner of each person's posts. You hit the reply box to that person if you would like to respond to them.

There is also a feature where you are able to have any replies e-mailed to you.
I got your e-mail and it made no sense to me because the OP referred to Mr. Hitchcock and Ms. Bergman by thier given names. I didn't. However, I hardly think that Alfred and Ingrid would mind much now. Does it really matter that much to you?

Since I agree with the rest of what you have to say, and I've already stated my feelings, I have nothing further to add.

Have a good day.

Fasten your seatbelts.... It's going to be a bumpy night!

[–] franzkabuki 16 years ago

What difference does it make? Why bitch about it?

[–] MissMargoChanning 16 years ago

Excuse me?
I was imparting a bit of information.
Whatever your troubles are, there is no need to take it out on people you don't even know!
I would normally have let it slide, that you sent a message to the wrong person, but you were actually hostile. There is no need for that sort of thing here. Everyone has an opinion, and they are entitled to it, and that includes you too. What's wrong with good manners when you disagree?
There is no need to insult people. Now chew that over, and try to have a good night.

Fasten your seatbelts.... It's going to be a bumpy night!

[–] franzkabuki 16 years ago

Take out what? These are public boards, it´s not like I sent you a PM or anything (and at no point did I reference your post). It was obvious I wasn´t responding to you as you apparently figured out yerself. It´s not instrumental to post the comments exactly below the OP & very few do that anyway. Besides, what was so hostile about it? Just expressed my opinion. I might have skipped the bit about calling famous people by their first names - but I just find it inappropriate. Whatever...

[–] staucody48 16 years ago

I see what you are saying, but you also have to remember that psychoanalysis was pretty new at the time, and this is the first movie to use it as a theme. So, all of the advances we now have or that have been made since would not be incorporated, naturally. In fact, both the script writer and the producer hired psychoanalytic professionals to be advisors during the creation of the screenplay and during filming, so I would venture to say it is more a reflection of what the advances in psychoanalysis of the day would be. Of course, Hitchcock did choose to ignore said experts on at least one part of the film, so who knows?

[–] franzkabuki 16 years ago

I may understand it, but it don´t make me LIKE it any better. Which is a pity since visually it´s a very compelling picture with a highly intriguing premise. It just takes a completely wrong turn at one point and never returns.