_almost_ a waste of 2 hours 9 minutes...

Rating: 6/10 (24 May 2005)

I watched Vertigo for only the 2nd time yesterday (the first time being some 15 years ago). I had forgotten most of the plot, so I was hoping to be surprised.
I was surprised. This movie, although it's VERY NICE to look at with it's vibrant colors and lovely San Francisco scenery, is simply a boring film.
There's a lot of unnecessary footage in the film; this movie could have been cut by 20-25 minutes and it would have been a better film.
I LOVE most of Hitchcock's stuff; this really doesn't seem to resemble anything I know of Hitchcock, save Jimmy Stewart (who acts like Jimmy Stewart on Grateful Dead Mushrooms). Stewart acts rather strangely...I don't like his character at all. If he was any kind of actor at all - he would have been scary (perhaps). Instead, he comes off looking deranged...and not because he has vertigo. Novak comes off as stupid - watch the movie and you'll see what I am talking about.
I'm not really sure at what Hitchcock was trying to do in this picture...the animation and dream scenes DO NOT HOLD UP AT ALL. As a matter of fact, they seem juvenile.
A rather convoluted story doesn't help, but this picture wasn't bad - just very tedious and a lot of pointless, wasted time during the first hour of the film. Plus Hitchcock uses a lot of McGuffin's and he stretches them -at times- beyond what he should. Maybe it was all a joke. I'm not alone in this - many professional reviewers have said the same thing.
The best job of acting in the film is done by Barbara Bel Geddes and sadly, that's not saying much (although she is very pretty in 1958 - she's more alluring to me than Kim Novak).