@RainingBullets said:

My favorite is Rear Window for sure.

@Lemon Juice said:

Over the last couple of years our local renovated theater (from the silent era) has shown some Hitchcock films for Halloween. One of the first I went to was Psycho. Admittedly, I was one of the older people in there, but I was horrified when several people in the audience started laughing at Psycho. I wanted to stand up and shout: "There's no laughing at Psycho!" I think they were amused at how dated some of the scenes were. Was it their first time seeing anything in black and white? What they hell did they expect in a theater that has a working organ and occasionally shows silents? (Nobody laughed during Wings). These aren't really young people like a high school group or something.

So last year they show The Birds and I think surely nobody will laugh during this one. There were just a few times some people laughed inappropriately but the real gut wrencher was at the very end some girl hollered out "That was waste of ten dollars". The audience responded by applauding the movie. Maybe she had just been used to Van Diesel movies? Who knows? Anyway it was first two times I'd seen a Hitchcock film in a theater with an audience since my last one when they were new (maybe Torn Curtain or Frenzy). It was a real eye opener.

Oh, and I can't bring myself to name just one favorite. I'll have to think about it some more.

I've noticed that although Hitchcock is revered among film lovers and his name carries with it prestige even outside of film lovers, his movies are definitely not guaranteed to be liked by younger audiences. I recently turned 25 years old but I grew up watching older movies, including several of his (especially the Birds, I've seen it a dozen times throughout my life), so I'm used to them.

There's a difference in how older movies present themselves, a very palpable difference. If someone's not used to it, they can seem boring or even poorly made. Also because what audiences are exposed to now growing up with current films, many of the wows in older films... aren't as wowing in comparison to such an audience, to be blunt. I think the Birds especially could be underwhelming :/ It takes a while to get going, the characters aren't that likable or relatable, and the horror/thriller elements are a hit or mess amongst people I know.

I think if someone actually yells out at the end of a film that it was a waste of money, then they have no tact and you shouldn't worry much over their opinion.

Totally agree with everything you said and they are all valid points. The older Hollywood movies, particularly from its Golden Age, can't begin to compare with the special effects, and the Wow factor from today's era.

One huge contrasting point you overlooked however, is the actual acting skills of today's stars vs. those from the Golden Age. Nobody in today's acting generaration can come close to to those past Hollywood superstars. For example, actors like James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Tyrone Power, Errol Flynn, etc. Its the same with the female actresses also.

I think in today's era there is such a reliance on other influences, that the actual acting is less important to the quality and popularity of a film. While in the past, the quality required for a great film demanded outstanding acting skills.

@JohnSteed said:

Totally agree with everything you said and they are all valid points. The older Hollywood movies, particularly from its Golden Age, can't begin to compare with the special effects, and the Wow factor from today's era.

One huge contrasting point you overlooked however, is the actual acting skills of today's stars vs. those from the Golden Age. Nobody in today's acting generaration can come close to to those past Hollywood superstars. For example, actors like James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Tyrone Power, Errol Flynn, etc. Its the same with the female actresses also.

I think in today's era there is such a reliance on other influences, that the actual acting is less important to the quality and popularity of a film. While in the past, the quality required for a great film demanded outstanding acting skills.

I actually think one could say acting these days is superior to that of the past - depending on one's priorities. If you're about realism, I think that's true. Fortunately, I'm not stuck on realism and much prefer the acting style of the Golden Age, although I can't really pinpoint why. It can come across as wooden at times; however, the stars of the past are infinitely more enjoyable to watch and possess a charisma that is lacking today.

I agree, in addition to their acting superiority, there was such a charisma and magnetism yesteryear's stars possessed that just jumped off the screen at you. Maybe it was just the unique magic of that time and era during the dawn of Hollywood. And likely never to be seen again.

Nostalgia's a hell of a drug.

1. Rope
2. Psycho
3. Vertigo
4. Rear Window
5. North By Northwest

@JumpinJack I'm not sure I liked the ending of Vertigo, but it remains among the most spectacular screenplays I've ever seen. Hitchcock's eye is, for me, his greatest contribution to movie-making. Another example of this is Rear Window.

@Smitty1776 @JohnSteed I really loved Clarke Gable in Teacher's Pet - and I see George Clooney as a modern Gable.

Comparing actors across eras is like comparing athletes across areas. Yesteryear's actors had less technology to hide behind... but then, movie-making was relatively new, the entire movie-making body of knowledge was smaller, and they were pioneering the craft, so the landscape in front of them was wide open; and audiences weren't as sophisticated, because movie-watching was new and there wasn't as much material references, accesses or sheer size of audience (teenagers and malls weren't yet a thing, distribution was extremely limited, and leisure was not really accessible to the masses until well after WWII).

Today's actors may have more technological crutches, if you will, but the body of knowledge is much richer, providing more references from which to draw, as well as greater challenges to creativity since we've now seen so much before. But then, the audience base is not only bigger but also more diverse, so indie and low budget films can find niche audiences and cult followings....

My favourite movie-maker is still Billy Wilder (golden age), with Tarantino a close 2nd (modern age).

North by Northwest, and by a wide margin. Everything about that movie is perfection.

@Snook71 said:

Very hard to choose...I would go with Vertigo, Lifeboat, Rebecca and believe it or not Marnie😳

I believe it -- I like Marnie a lot and usually watch it when I come across it. (You have good taste. ) :-)

REAR WINDOW by a mile. It's the reason I got interested in older, classic movies. It made me feel like a total voyeur. Genius by Hitchcock.

The ones I'm particularly a fan of and especially enjoy are: The 39 Steps (1935), The Lady Vanishes (1938), Shadow of a Doubt (1943), Strangers on a Train (1951), I Confess (1953), and Psycho (1960). If I had to single out just one as very favourite (and it could vary depending on the day and the mood), I'd probably go with Strangers on a Train.

I guess mine is either Rope or Psycho.

Vertigo for sure Hitchcock,Herrmann,Burks and Tomasini at their best

Vertigo, hands down.

I can't name just one, so here are my favs (in no particular order):

Rebecca

Suspicion

Spellbound

Notorious

Dial M for Murder

Rear Window

To Catch a Thief

Blackmail. The silent version, although the 'knife' table sequence in the sound version remains one of his greatest moments early on.