SPOILERS GALORE! If you've never seen the movie, DON'T READ this review!

Rating: 5/10 (17 February 2000)

I suppose this is some kind of masterpiece, what with the absolutely overwhelming photography, powerful score and all - but I must say I just couldn't get into it. We're made to be patient through a looooong exposition (Scottie following her around), which I didn't mind at first because I said, "Hey it's Hitchcock - the payoff will be worth it." Well, it wasn't. Scottie's obsession was inexplicable to me (and, yes, I realize that Kim Novak is hot); maybe the writing was weak in not giving him a strong and clear enough motivation for going over the edge (what were his other romantic attachments like? Why is *this* one in particular so extremely excessive? Knowing these things would help) or maybe it's just that I can't buy Jimmy Stewart in this type of role. He projects too much groundedness, dignity and common sense for him to be convincing as this kind of obsessional basket case (the scene with him in the asylum was particularly embarrassing and unconvincing; he doesn't look "crazy" - he looks like Jimmy Stewart just refusing to say his lines). Maybe an actor a bit more rumpled and on the edge - Robert Mitchum, say - could have brought the part off better (and I'm a *huge* Jimmy Stewart fan, just so you don't get the wrong idea).
My biggest problem, however, is with the final third of the movie. Excuse me, but I just don't think it was a good idea to reveal the murder plot and its actual machinations two-thirds of the way into the film. Not knowing for certain up until the very end whether "Judy" was really "Madeleine" or whether Scottie was indeed just imagining things would have been much MUCH more effective. It would have pulled the viewer in, kept him guessing and psychologically on edge all the way through. Once you know that Scottie is "correct" in his assumption, not only is the tension gone and you're no longer immediately connected to the story, also you can't truly buy his craziness or obsession as a thematic point since, after all, he's "right." I believe this to be one of the all-time biggest scripting mistakes in the history of cinema.
Hitchcock has said, though, that suspense is not what he was primarily after in this movie. He wanted to reveal the murder plot early so it wouldn't get in the way of the attention paid to Scottie's disintegration. But without the suspense, Scottie's disintegration just looks stupid. It's like the end of the movie has already come and gone, and yet the director is still forcing us to sit through a drawn-out and pointless epilogue that just takes foreeeeeever. . .
And the ending - what's with that?! She sees a nun and so she jumps off the roof? It's absolutely RIDICULOUS - so abrupt and nonsensical, as if the editor suddenly told Hitchcock that he had to end the film RIGHT NOW, and he had to think of something fast. Clearly, the best ending (if the film had to go this long) would have been for her to slip off the edge, and then have Scottie try but fail to save her - thus mirroring his failure to save the cop at the beginning of the movie from falling, giving the whole thing a neat little symmetry. That Hitchcock failed to see the absolute rightness of this conclusion makes me wonder about his status as a cinematic genius.
Well, ok, I won't go that far - Hitch's reputation is safe. But Vertigo's isn't; this is no masterpiece, and far from the director's greatest work. Instead, this is the one film where he deserted his "popcorn" approach to creating thrills and opted for a more pensive and "mature" style, thinking this would prove him the artist so many denied that he was. It does just the opposite - by playing down what he did best (building and sustaining suspense), Hitchcock is left rudderless, and his attempt at "adult" themes just look embarrassing.
It's beautiful to look at, of course - one of the most sumptuous visual experiences in the entire history of movies. The redwoods scene, and the Golden Gate Bridge - fantastic! The scenes in the museum, too - absolutely ravishing. But, alas, great photography does not make a great movie. If only Vertigo were a coffee table book, then it might truly deserve the classic status it has been accorded.
I don't know, I guess if you're a fan of the technical aspects of cinema, and love Hitchcock for his visual bravura and like to analyze his technique, there's probably a lot here for you to enjoy (and is no doubt why it's so loved by other directors). But if you're like me, and enjoy Hitchcock films for their pure ability to keep you tense and on the edge of your seat, Vertigo is not the film to watch.