A Powerful Punch of Suspense, a Light Tap of Everything Else

Rating: 6/10 (12 January 2017)

Alfred Hitchcock is arguably one of the most genre-defining directors of cinema history. With such classics like "Psycho," "Rear Window," "Vertigo," etc., there's a clear, undeniable reason he is considered Hollywood's "Master of Suspense."
I will agree with the common thought that he is one of the top directors of our time; however, his 1963 film, "The Birds," is not something I would personally accept as being one of his better productions.
I do have a rather negative opinion of this movie, though truthfully, I've seen MUCH worse. There's simply a lot I don't like about the plot, the characters, and the film's approach to the conflict at-hand. Without going into too much detail (or major spoilers), I truly believed this movie could've been done a lot better.
Okay, so the suspense aspect was TERRIFIC; that's the one and only thing I'll give this movie and A+ for, as the whole "bird" concept was (mostly) executed with perfection. To today's standards, the special effects were cheesy (keeping in mind this film is nearing 60 years old), but I couldn't help myself but feeling terrified going into the final act of the movie. Basically, the last thirty minutes of this two- hour film was fantastic. I was on-edge, scared, and downright frightened by the way the conflict influenced character development.
That said, that was the only thing I liked about the movie.
I felt like the first act of the movie was weak, boring, and almost pointless. The purpose of the first hour was to introduce the characters, develop the conflict, and try to create chemistry between each member of the cast. None of these things, however, were ever fulfilled enough for me. The movie spent so much time on the characters that I ending up barely caring about the bird conflict when it became prevalent. I don't mind slow movies at all - in fact, the slowness in a movie is supposed to make thrillers more suspenseful - but the amount of time focused on the protagonist and her motives became ridiculously overbearing. The worst thing is, NONE of this wrapped up in the end. All of the time spend on Melanie's love affairs never amounted to anything, and barely made sense when romanticizing (in its brevity) actually occurred. Simply put, character chemistry was barely sub-par.
But characters aren't always the most important thing, right? In a Hitchcock film, it's all about the ending and the suspenseful events that led up to it. Sure, I'll agree with that, but I can't help but notice the numerous plot holes the movie had, the unanswered questions the film created, and the brutally disappointing ending - completely left up to the viewer's interpretation. Why were the birds there? What made them so aggressive? What was the point of the love birds? Did they ever make it out of their driveway? Honestly, things just didn't make sense with this one. The film gives us ideas to think about and toy with, but not enough direction throughout the production to make a reasonable inference.