I don't get it.

Rating: 3/10 (20 May 2003)

I simply don't. Perhaps someone will explain to me how did this film get to #20 in the top 250 films list, because I can't see why. I'm not complaining that the film is dated (1959 ... nope, no problems with that) or that the film is full of plotholes (only a newspaper film critic will complain about that), but I can't see how the film is interesting. I take it that Cary Grant is playing an unrealistic character, someone who's ordinary but thrown into extraordinary situations, but still doesn't flinch when a crop-duster comes after him or when he's escorted out by strangers with guns. Fine - but where's the charm? Where's the suaveness? Where's the style? I don't feel it. In fact, it came across as VERY fake. I don't see Roger Thornhill - all I see is Cary Grant. I can't understand why the cropduster scene is so memorable - is it because it's the first time there was a movie with a man being chased by a plane in it? I take it that the Mt Rushmore scene is memorable because it's the first time it's been done and no other film has really gone to do it again, but didn't think that was outrageously original (not saying it's not a creative idea, just don't get the hype). Eva Marie Saint is pretty and plays the complicated Eve subtly well. But I don't see Hitchcock's 'master' direction - I can't see what's so unique ... or ... or incredible about it. Can somebody point the way, cause I don't think age has anything to do with this (I'm an 18 year-old movie geek).