Where a dizzy plot and story leave this viewer behind...

Rating: 6/10 (2 January 2013)

When I first saw this movie in 1959, I was bored to tears, almost. As a teenager, I wanted action, and the film and story seemed to be lacking in that regard. Only when Psycho (1960) came along did my appreciation of Hitchcock increase. As to Vertigo's story, the above short synopsis from filmfactsman provides sufficient information for those who haven't seen the movie.
However, over fifty years later, I watched Vertigo for a second time and I must say my initial assessment was similar: the film's action drags with too much walking, shadowing and following, coupled with too much driving, following and shadowing. Appropriate jump-cutting could have been used a number of times – and shorten viewers' pains in the process, I think.
On the flip side though, I can now fully appreciate Hitchcock's filming technique to show how Scottie Ferguson (James Stewart) grapples with the mystery of Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak) and how he unravels it. Though I'm sure there were more shot-reverse shot sequences in this movie than in any other of Hitchcock's.
However, what the film truly lacks overall, in my opinion, is effective suspense – sufficient to keep this viewer fully interested in what will happen, and when and why. Hence, it's even a more of a puzzle to me why Vertigo has now replaced Citizen Kane (1941) as "the best movie of all time" (or words to that effect). Sure, both stories are mysteries, but the latter packs more of a punch for viewers from the get-go; and the revelation at the end provides greater dramatic irony than that in Vertigo. Indeed, one could argue that Vertigo's irony is weak, at best, and just corny at worst.
Moreover, one wonders how a supposedly intelligent ex-cop could be so stupid to be sucked in twice by the same – but different – woman. Love is blind, I guess, as always.
And, finally, the entire story of Vertigo is just too predictable, in addition to having a dialog that's just plain dull much of the time. Technically, as I implied, the actual filming is excellent, as you would expect from Hitchcock; and the color is just so vividly vibrant. But that's not enough for me to regard it as anything more than just that: a well-constructed film with few errors.
James Stewart – always more effective in comedy and westerns, in my opinion – is just not right for the role. Kim Novak, on the other hand, is most effective, providing her best acting role that I've seen. And, as always, Barbara Bel Geddes is a most suitable supporting player as one of Stewart's old flames.
I'm glad I've seen the movie again. And I do recommend it for all Hitchcock fans, for sure. But it's no where near his best effort: too long, too slow, too predictable and too light on suspense. Give this one six out of ten – and I'm being generous.
January 2nd, 2013