🎦 Vertigo full movie HD download (Alfred Hitchcock) - Crime, Thriller, Mystery, Romance, Film-Noir. 🎬
Crime, Thriller, Mystery, Romance, Film-Noir
IMDB rating:
Alfred Hitchcock
James Stewart as John 'Scottie' Ferguson
Kim Novak as Madeleine Elster
Barbara Bel Geddes as Midge Wood
Tom Helmore as Gavin Elster
Henry Jones as Coroner
Raymond Bailey as Scottie's Doctor
Ellen Corby as Manager of McKittrick Hotel
Konstantin Shayne as Pop Leibel
Storyline: John "Scottie" Ferguson is a retired San Francisco police detective who suffers from acrophobia and Madeleine is the lady who leads him to high places. A wealthy shipbuilder who is an acquaintance from college days approaches Scottie and asks him to follow his beautiful wife, Madeleine. He fears she is going insane, maybe even contemplating suicide, he believes she is possessed by a dead ancestor. Scottie is skeptical, but agrees after he sees the beautiful Madeleine.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x1080 px 9297 Mb h264 128 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 704x384 px 2212 Mb mpeg4 2407 Kbps mkv Download
DVD-rip 560x320 px 700 Mb mpeg4 787 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 480x258 px 639 Mb xvid 600 Kbps mov Download
Pretentious miss
Despite it's elevated status, which has come from criticism and academic analysis, Vertigo remains a boring experience, even with many interesting thematic facets.

Hitchcock told Truffaut that the interest/suspense in Vertigo is what Scottie might do. That question had been the bedrock of Hitchcock's cinema but Scottie as played by Stewart is too ambiguous; he is reactive and weak. The lack of vigor in the character makes his falling love with with Madeleine barely believable, and his constant pleading with her is altogether too weak.

Compounding the problems is the plot, the structural mechanism, of the story that is also not believable. The orchestration of the scheme requires credibility and here it is strained: the choice of policeman; the discovery of Judy etc it's rather like those English mysteries that Raymond Chandler mocked because it is contingent on rare elements to bind the entire piece together.

And Novak's performance, which despite a reappraisal recently, seems to demonstrate that she never really progressed beyond the nervous rabbit role play at drama school. She is , as the expression has it, wise with a closed mouth, but once she speaks the mystery is gone. Her eyebrows are also quite frightening.

Vertigo has great music, locations and an intriguing idea for a story (one that would have been gripping in a novel); but equally it has dull driving scenes, over written dialog (Pop's story in the bookstore) and two lead actors who are far from ideal. This is one film when the themes and not the material on screen excites comment, and more film Phds no doubt, but it is pretentious miss in Hitchcock's golden decade.
No towering achievement
Alfred Hitchcock has a reputation as one of the outstanding film-makers of his era; but to a modern viewer, 'Vertigo' disappoints. The plotting is as torturous as any modern thriller, but the 1950 production values continually let it down: one grows tired of out-of-doors scenes transparently shot in the studio (and even the scenes actually shot on location are curiously devoid of passers-by), there's a very clumsy (though admittedly innovative) dream sequence, even the fact that the two leads are unable to even kiss each other properly starts to grate after a while. This might suggest that Hitchcock's only failing with this movie was over-ambition, but unfortunately, it isn't so: for he also fails to get decent performances from his leading actors, stiff-as-a-board Jimmy Stweart and icy Kim Novak (a typical Hitchcock blonde) generate absolutely no on-screen chemistry. And both have complex roles to play: one of them undergoes a kind of nervous breakdown, while the other simulates the same thing; but neither can play their roles with sufficient depth to make this story work as psychological melodrama. There is one interesting female character - played by Barbara Bel Geddes - but she is mysteriously written out half way though for no good reason. Compare the performances in this movie to those being put in by the likes of Marlon Brando or Orson Welles at the same period in time, and one has to pass harsh judgement. There are still a few interesting details: it's amazing how little dialogue Hitchcock dares get away with, and the very bleak ending is surprising for a mainstream film. But it's impossible to invest any emotional feeling in the story; and that's surprising, given Hitchcock's towering legend.
Awful garbage
The use of colour is probably the only good thing about this slow and boring, overlong, dated film. The first half is much too long and slow and the repetitive driving scenes quickly become very tiresome. Kim Novak was always a poor actress, and looks ridiculous with her bleached platinum blond hair and thick dark eyebrows. Far too many scenes take place in the studio on very fake looking sets with painted backdrops. The opening scene is ruined because it is so fake, not that cops would be chasing a criminal over rooftops anyway. By far the worst thing however is the dreadful miscasting of Grandfather Stewart as Scottie. Stewart was clearly far too old to be playing romantic leads at this point in his career and he was actually more than twice Kim Novak's age (she was 24 and he was 49, though he looked at least 55). His grey wig is laughably bad and he just looks like an ugly old man chasing after his granddaughter. With a younger, better looking actor like Marlon Brando the film might have at least been watchable.
Did Hitchcock allow his assistant to direct?
I first saw this film in the mid-'80's and again recently. The words which come immediately to mind to describe it are "tedious" and "pointless", words one does not normally associate with Hitchcock. "Overrated" does not even come close. Perhaps someone will produce a restored version of Vertigo , with an extra hour or two of San Francisco street scenes. Vertigo is already more like a travelogue than a narrative.
Not sure why this is so highly regarded
I don't see why this is regarded so highly. Do people feel obliged to love Alfred Hitchcock movies? Psycho, Rear Window and Rebecca were masterpieces but Vertigo is not in their league, not even close.

I personally found Vertigo long-winded and ultimately quite boring. Hitchcock takes forever to set the scene, then having set it, instead of ramping up the pace, continues to drag out the story.

Many of the key turning points and pieces of the plot seemed contrived and implausible.

Good performances by James Stewart, Kim Novak and Barbara Bel Geddes though.
Ooh, what a rush!!
No-one enjoyed toying with people's minds quite like Hitch; and "Vertigo" is a film that earns its right to sit proudly alongside his other psychological masterpieces. Stewart is superb and perfectly cast as the archetypal 'common man' who, after an accident, suddenly finds himself embroiled in a dizzying mystery he struggles to keep up with. If this all sounds a bit too "Rear Window", it plays sufficiently fresh to offer its own distinct pleasures, but it would probably be true to say that fans of one will certainly delight in the other, as well.

From the captivating vortex of the title sequence onward, "Vertigo" plunges headlong into the story. This wouldn't be Hitchcock without even a hint of a Macguffin, but the real power of the story for me came from being drawn into someone's obsession, and of course the stunning climax of its ultimate resolution. A widely acknowledged classic that's lost none of its thrall in the modern age, "Vertigo" is totally absorbing, and grips you like few other tales have managed to do.
Oh Dear - What a MESS!
This film is exceedingly annoying to watch - unless you happen to be one of the multitude of pretentious fools who think their intellect is better than everyone else's because they "get it". Well, I have news for those dumb-asses: There is nothing to get.

Vertigo is plodding, annoying, and the pacing is terrible. The characters do not act like real people; it's yet another film where this is the case. What makes it all the more infuriating is that there IS a clever story buried under all the sewage, clawing to get out. And it never does. Even at the end, there's a brief moment where things actually make sense - where there is some semblance of reality - only for it to be dashed by one of the most ludicrous finales I HAVE EVER SEEN. It's THAT BAD. That ending would be laughed out of the cinema today (and probably was back then), but because this film is considered a 'classic', it's applauded as some kind of masterpiece. It isn't. It's just an exceedingly daft finale to a grossly unrealistic film.

The only way I could possibly enjoy Vertigo is if I had very little logical thinking. Unfortunately for all the die-hard movie buffs masturbating in unison, I am not a conformist who feels a need to nod their head in agreement, just because society says I am in the presence of brilliance. I was not in the presence of brilliance, just stupidity. The emperor has no clothes.

My rating: 1/5.
Masterpiece or failure? I agree with the former
When Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" opened in 1958, it had a cold reception by both critics and audience, and many even consider it a failure in his remarkable career. Even Hitchcock wondered about what went wrong and he blamed lead star James Stewart for the failure. What probably happened, was that this time, Hitchcock's usual walk on the dark side went a bit too far for the times.

"Vertigo", based on Pierre Boileau's novel "d'Entre Les Morts", is a dark tale of romance, obsessions and lies, all spiced up with the lead character's acrophobia. James Stewart is our protagonist, as Scottie, he plays a detective whose sudden retire from the police was caused by an accident involving his acrophobia, his fear of heights.

Hired by Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore), a mysterious old friend from school; he accepts the mission of following Elster's wife, Madeline (Kin Novak), who supposedly is possessed by the ancient spirit of one of her ancestors, and that eventually will take her life. As Scottie tries to protect Madeline, he falls in love with her, starting a forbidden romance that is doomed from the start. After Scottie fails to save Madeline's life due to the vertigo caused by his acrophobia, his obsession with her take him to commit unexpected actions.

Boileau's complex story of obsession may had been too much for the critics and the audience of its time; and watching James Stewart going from a regular guy to a man bordering insanity certainly didn't help the film. Nevertheless, time has proved that "Vertigo" was indeed a powerful film undeserving of the cold reception it had.

James Stewart gives probably his best performance ever, the sudden fall from grace that eventually take its toll on Scottie is perfectly portrayed by Stewart. Hitchcock was really wrong at blaming James for the failing, as it was the audience who was not ready to see their hero turned into a grotesque monster.

Kim Novak plays his role with grace, although certainly her character is not as demanding as Stewart's. The movie is all about Scottie and his failed romance leading to the destruction of his life. This complex persona makes him one of the best fictional characters ever written, let alone portrayed on film.

The technical aspects of the movie are superb too, Hitchcock creates a brilliant composition of colors and the visuals are beautiful. Bernard Herrman's score is subtle but fitting, although not as powerful as his famous work on "Psycho".

If a flaw is to be found, I would say that the script developed for the film was probably not the most friendly for the audience. This film is certainly not for everyone, as it's slow pace and heavy darkness in the subject may turn off people familiar with Hitchcock's lighter films as his usual dark humor is not present here The only film I can relate to "Vertigo" in terms of harsh "darkness" would be "The Wrong Man"; although the big difference is, that in that film, the trouble is caused by outside forces, while in "Vertigo", we get a glimpse to that dark part of our soul we do not dare to watch.

The first time I watched it, I was not sure about what had just happened in front of my eyes, not sure if it was good or bad. After a second watch I guess this is of the kind of films that grow on you. Some consider it a failure and others consider it a masterpiece; my opinion stands closer to the latter: I call it a great piece of cinema. 9/10.
Hitchcock can make a good movie without a plausible plot.
This movie entertains because the director uses the beauty of San Francico, Kim Novak and a good score. The first time I saw this movie, the absurdities were overcome by the above. But after seeing the movie for the third or fourth times, the plot begins to grate on my penchant for logic. I don't mind fantasy, or even science fiction. But, its got to be logical. I find the concept of entering into a murder conspiracy with an accomplice who is as attractive as Kim Novak, and not insist that she move, is simply unblievable. Take it from an old detective, San Francico in the 50's was not big enough to hide a Kim Novak from the eye of a good detective. Then there is the scene at the tower. Its not bad enough that we have to see it once, we see it several times in cartoon color. when you commit a murder, you better think of as many varibles as you can, or you will get caught. Unless you murder some street person and nobody cares. The complex murder scheme makes for great entertainment. But consider this point. How sure could you be that Scotty would leave the scene? Even if he left the tower, the odds are that he would remain in the area. He's a former cop. He's just witnessed a suicide. He can't leave. One of the most absurd scenes is at the inquest, where he is having his character pummeled. Was this the writer's attempt to make Scotty's leaving the scene seem the most logical reaction? Well, it didn't work on me the last time I saw this film.
Watching the films of Alfred Hitchcock reminds one of the fairy tale of Goldilocks And The Three Bears. Not so much in the actual filmic nature of the art, but in the critical reception accorded the films. As example, some of the films that are labeled masterpieces, like Psycho or The Birds, are just right in their assessment. Other films that are critically neglected are, in fact, among Hitchcock's better films, such as Rope and Frenzy. Then there are the films that are hailed as masterpieces, but which are profound disappointments. If they are not outright bad films, they certainly are only marginally solid films, and achieve their solidity mainly through technical accomplishments. In this category I would place Rear Window and Vertigo.

It's not that Vertigo is an awful film, for technically it's very well made- especially considering that era, but the flaccid and absurd screenplay simply does not hold up a half century on. Add to that the fact that the film is glacially paced, and you have a fairly boring film; one that even Jimmy Stewart's crotchety presence can barely enliven. However, I have long lauded films that do not place plot ahead of character development, so one might ask why am I asking for a better plot and more briskly paced film? Well, simply put, all of the characters are cardboard cutouts, and plot details are easier to resolve than character depth. If one is going to give mere archetypes (and that's being generous, the characters are really more stereotypes than archetypes) then the plot better zing and have a good payoff. This one does not. Part of the problem with the screenplay is the utter dependence for the propulsion of the plot upon the Neolithic psychiatric pseudoscience of the era, which too many of Hitchcock's films are dependent upon, and which leave most of his films in very shallow waters intellectually. This lack of intellectual and emotional depth is part of the reason he is rightly looked down upon when compared to greater masters of film, such as Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, Federico Fellini, Werner Herzog, Ingmar Bergman, or Martin Scorsese.

A film like this points out the fact that Hitchcock not only was not a 'deep' director, but could not have been, for by sacrificing what he did best- manipulation, suspense, and twists of plot, all he did was sacrifice what he did best. He had no Bergmanian depths to plumb. Is it really believable that Scotty would become a deaf-mute for a year over his supposed guilt in 'Madeline's' suicide? Stewart projects far too much sanity in this role, and as a filmic persona. When Midge is fussing over him he does not look remotely catatonic, merely sleepy. There were plenty of other downright bad moments in the film, of course, such as where Scottie is standing on a chair, looks out Midge's window, and faints gently into her arms. Now, he dwarfs her in size, and falling from several feet, he would not waft into her arms, but thud, and probably hurt both of them. This scene is set up only to show that Midge will always be there for Scottie, despite whatever convolutions their relationship has had. But, we get this from every moment they are together. There are many, many other screenplay moments that fail, and this surprises, for the co-screenwriters, Samuel Taylor and Alec Coppel, based the film upon the novel D'Entre Les Morts, by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac, who also wrote the story for Henri-Georges Clouzot's great thriller Diabolique, a tale that Hitchcock tried to get the rights to, but failed. Given Diabolique's greatness one can only assume that the screnwriters, in concert with Hitchcock, ruined what was probably a great story.

If the script and direction is weak, however, the best parts of the film are the score, provided by Bernard Herrmann, and the camera work. The music directs the viewer, but does not lead nor overwhelm, save for the trite and sappy love scenes, which are bad all around. Even better than the film's soundtrack is the cinematography by Hitchcock's long time cinematographer Robert Burks. The palette is lush with reds, greens, and browns, as the shots of the sequoias, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the art museum are gorgeous, making the most of the now outdated Technicolor technology. There is also a brief scene which features Ellen Corby, who would later go on to fame as the crotchety grandmother in the television series The Waltons, that is humorous. For those interested in Hitchcock's cameo, it comes about eleven minutes into the film, in a throwaway shot designed only for the cameo, where we see him crossing a street before we get to the interior of Gavin Elster's office.

Yet, even more so than the implausibilities, bad screenplay, and sexism, that damn the film is the fact that Vertigo is simply dull. Add that to a lead character who is a creep with problems, its love story pathetic, and its 'mystery' being rather pallid and given away too soon, and the claim that Vertigo is one of Hitchcock's most overrated films is a good one. At best, it is merely a mediocre film. And, as Goldilocks might claim, that sort of assessment is 'just right.'
📹 Vertigo full movie HD download 1958 - James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore, Henry Jones, Raymond Bailey, Ellen Corby, Konstantin Shayne, Lee Patrick - USA. 📀