Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

gkeaton-15549 The movie Rear Window which was released in 1954 and directed by Alfred Hitchcock has proven to be a gripping and exciting movie that leads the viewer through a mystery. The main character L.B. Jeffries, played by James Steward, investigates a murder that he believed happened but has no real evidence to prove which he acts wonderfully in and makes the movie very exciting. This movie makes one evaluate the freedom that we have but also makes the viewer question is what L.B. Jeffries saw something that he should be concerned about and is he disrespecting others privacy.The main theme in the movie gives it an interesting feeling because of the general plot that is around what Jeffries sees when he looks out his window and spies on his neighbors. The way that the plot goes it suggests from the beginning that there is going to be a problem at some point because of the way that the dialog goes. From this when Jeffries is talking to Stella it seems clear that he is looking out the window too much and paying attention in a way to other people where he is seeing more than they may want to make public. At first, when Lisa Fermont comes to the apartment it seems that she is going to be able to talk some sense into Jeffries telling him that the observations that he is making are crazy, but then she ends up believing him and just contributing to his observations and obsession to see what his neighbors are doing. But, as the movie goes on we learn that the events he is seeing may not be so far-fetched and the evidence starts to build up suggesting that his neighbor Thorwald might have killed his wife. In the end, Doyle realizes that he was wrong and even though that Jeffries might have been going a little crazy he was still sure of what he saw in the window which was proven to not be in his imagination in the end.The movie gets even more suspicious when a detective friend of L.B. Jeffries, Thomas Doyle played by Wendell Corey, enters and initially doubts Jeffries because of circumstantial evidence. This is just the beginning of the character development for Doyle who starts doubting Jeffries then evolves over time to believe him more and eventually agree with accusing Thorwald of the murder. While Doyle may doubt Jeffries and his friends originally and want to have no part of the case, I believe that he eventually comes to realize that he knows Jeffries and that he may not be that crazy after all. This leads him to take another look at the case after Jeffries and Lisa Freemont find more evidence that suggests that the letter and things Doyle has found may not be true.The cinematography in the movie is very good and makes what is a small space feel very big and exciting with many different camera angles and tricks used. This is one of the largest factors that makes the movie exciting with the cuts from window to window and across the alley which show in an exciting way what is going on in all the different apartments. The cinematography is what makes the movie interesting because if it were shot in a different way the movie could very easily lose the viewers' attention. One of the most important and interesting shots in the movie is the opening shot where the camera pans through the alley setting the scene. This is very important because it really establishes the location where the events take place with a type of camera movement that we do not see many other times in the movie.Overall I would definitely recommend this movie to others because of the good cinematography, exciting storyline and good actors and actresses. I would give this movie an 8/10.

awm-77697 Rear window is such a unique and interesting movie. It is one that almost stands alone in its plot and camera angles and things of that sort. During the first twenty to thirty minutes of this movie it was almost extremely boring and I kept constantly asking myself the same question over and over again, which is "are they really going to keep the camera in this one room for the whole movie?" I kept on telling myself that the camera would probably move sometime soon and they would change scenery sometime soon, but that time just never came. Throughout the film it took sometime for me to actually accept the new movie style that Hitchcock portrays in this film. During this film I went through almost 3 different stages of interest. The first stage consisted mostly of confusion and trying to figure out what was going on as they were introducing the different characters and scenarios. It was a very new movie feel for me so it took time to get used to. The second phase for me was unfortunately boredom, as I couldn't really engage into what was being played out in the different apartments. It wasn't until the end of the movie, about the time when the dog is found dead with its neck snapped that I really started to enjoy and became engaged in the film. The ending was very engaging and was extremely well done. It created an excellent sense of tension and suspense that I think engages every single viewer. During the whole process of watching the movie I can't really say I enjoyed it at all but once I looked back on it and realized the different cinematic elements and styles I came to appreciate it and understand it more. I definitely have a strong bias here because I was born into a generation of such great quality cameras and such good editing and animation. For this reason it can be really hard for me to engage in older movies of this style. Nonetheless this movie was very interesting to look back on and see how Hitchcock portrayed the characters in such an interesting way. It was so different and cool to basically see people as non-actors but just as every day people. You really get a sense of this when the movie is portraying someone in their everyday life without them supposedly knowing that they are being watched. You see the pureness of every shot. This film really enacts a different feeling in the viewer, as it is something were really not used to seeing. Overall I cant really say that I enjoyed this movie to much as I found it slightly boring and un-engaging. There are many great cinematic elements that make it very different and interesting. The whole stationary camera sense was just two different for me and I was able to really appreciate and enjoy the movie very much.

coleboggan I think that Alfred Hitchcock's rear window is a fantastic movie. I'd go as far as to say that it is one of the best thrillers I have ever seen. There are a few main aspects of the film that I would like to point out that sold me on this wonderful film: the framing and filming techniques, suspense building, and pacing of the film were all perfect, and made for an interesting, thrilling, and over-all exciting display of some of theater's finest filming techniques that will keep you on the edge of your seat until the credits roll. First, the framing of the film was excellent. Upon first hearing the premise, that the entire movie takes place from one man's room, you might be hesitant. Such a boring, consistent setting couldn't possibly make for an interesting film. But within the first few minutes of starting, you find very quickly that these first impressions were very wrong. The film manages to build a complex, active, and very real world using just the room of main character, photographer L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries, and the view from his window. By cutting from shots of his apartment to the surrounding complex outside, the movie manages to make you think there's more to this film than just Jeff's living room. On top of this, the framing techniques used keep the film exciting. To start, you never see more than Jeff can through his window; this allows you to really connect with the characters, and theorize about the events going on at the same time as they do. We'll talk more about this under pacing, but the film always gives you just enough information to make you wonder what's really going on. Using what's not shown in frame as much as what is, Hitchcock manages to keep you glued to the screen throughout the movie. This lasting interest is brought about just as much through the pacing and suspense of the film. While Jeff is looking out his window one day, he notices some suspicious behavior from one of his neighbors, and begins to think he has witnessed a murder. As the film continues, the evidence of this is given to you in bits and pieces. You only see half the story, and half to piece the puzzle together yourself, along with the main characters, who slowly start to believe Jeff's theories about his neighbor's actions. However, with every bit of evidence towards the crime, Jeff's detective friend strikes it down with a completely logical explanation, leading Jeff, and the audience along with him, to believe that he might be delusional. Every plot point in the film is spaced beautifully, so that every time you think you've figured it out, some new idea or suspicious act comes up and throws you completely off. As Jeff slowly convinces more people that he's witnessed a murder, there are always others who outright deny his ideas. Another point related to pacing is the building of suspense. The movie manages to subtly build suspense as the movie progresses, resulting in a thrilling conclusion. One method it uses to do this is by confining our hero. Due to an accident at a race track, Jeff is confined to the wheelchair in his room with a broken leg. He is unable to leave his room, which is what results in him watching his neighbors through his rear window. The suspense continues to build as he watches helplessly as the events before him unfold. There's nothing he can do but watch it happen and try to make a convincing argument. With all of these filming concepts combined, Alfred Hitchcock was able to produce one of the best thrillers of all time, certainly the best I've ever seen. It was intense, interesting, and kept me theorizing until the last second. With a great cast and exceptional production value, I would easily recommend this film to anyone looking for a classic with an exciting plot and interesting premise that will keep you engaged and entertained.

Coventry This is likely to go down as the least popular user-comment in history, but then so be it. I believe in honesty and freedom of speech. Although universally considered as one of the top three (or maybe top five) best thrillers that Alfred Hitchcock made in his lengthy and undeniably brilliant career, I personally feel that "Rear Window" is the most overrated movie of all times and I sincerely can't fathom why it's such a cinematic landmark. I reckon that the basic plot idea is utmost intriguing and that it's rather inventive how the cameras film literally everything from within the same secluded living room location, but that about sums up all the film's strengths. The narcistic photographer L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart) sits immobilized in his apartment, bound to both a wheelchair and a humongous plaster cast around his leg ever since he took too much risk during a photo shoot on a racetrack. Purely out of boredom, he begins to watch all his neighbors across the little cement garden. The watching quickly turns into observing with binoculars and then into spying with his most professional & strongest photo lenses. He then thinks he witnesses a middle-aged man murdering his wife in cold blood, but a befriended police inspector, his lovely girlfriend and even his nosy housekeeper have trouble believing him. I was particularly annoyed by the behavior and ignorance of the protagonist. Jeff is supposed to be an intelligent person, so he must understand or at least respect that the police can't just go invading someone's private property and interrogate them about a possibly felony for which there isn't any evidence. The entire film evidently revolves on L.B. Jefferies' arrogant persona, and of course it doesn't help that I never really liked the actor James Stewart. I can appreciate him when his characters aren't omnipresent, like in Hitchcock's "Rope" for example, but here he was rapidly getting on my nerves. The other characters, including Grace Kelly who never looked prettier, are downgraded to mere extras. I am also aware that practically every review praises that the powerful impact of "Rear Window" lies in the fact that it's a statement on the human towards voyeurism and blah blah, but to me a film has to be entertaining and plausible first and foremost. "Read Window" along with "Vertigo" and "The Man Who Knew Too Much" made me realize that can't get into Hitch's espionage or 'wrong-man-condemned' thrillers, and that I find his more polished thrillers extremely boring, unrealistic and overrated. I'm primarily a horror fanatic, and thus love the nasty Hitchcock films the most, like "Psycho", "Shadow of a Doubt", "Rope" and "Frenzy".