Deemed as great, I'll go with ....very good!

Rating: 8/10 (11 September 2010)

This film has been heralded as Hitchcock's greatest masterpiece, his most personal thriller and a major classic. Its even ranked in the IMDb top 50. That's all very impressive and while I can't say I don't like the movie, I'm not willing to get quite that giddy with praise. I just watched it again, the magnificently restored version, in Hi Def. That's also very impressive.
So where does it fall short of its lofty historic ranking for me, hard to say without sounding awfully nit-picky. Maybe it is nit-picky. The lush San Fransico background is amazing. The artwork, the flowers, the surrounding architecture are dazzling. The award winning music score is perfect for 1958 and sets the movie's mood, which changes several times, in lush, often rousing tones. But........ the story, the pacing and even some of the casting has always left me cold. Hitchcock can play a scene for a long time, almost leisurely, to get a MOOD. In "VERTIGO" they are maddenly leisurely. And the premise of the possessed wife, the concerned husband, the off kilter damaged cop, the insurance con is downright goofy! Especially the race to leap off the building for a dramatic suicide. The part 1 love story can be bought (the con and all!), and well played by the two stars, but the part 2 love story is so dark and possessive that it has always smacked of mean spirited to me.
Now the casting. Jimmy Stewart has never taken a false step, but at age 50, despite his perfectly coiffed toupee and heavy makeup still looks it. Kim Novak, despite the worst eyebrows in cinema history, is a ravishing early 20's and looks it. The fake and then real attraction to Stewart is hard to imagine. Especially when the apparently lonely (how could she be) and distraught Novak, who really loved Jimmy, has heaps of humiliation piled on her by the dark and damaged Stewart. It threw my "suspension of belief" off a bit. And the surprisingly attractive Barbara Del Geddes (pre-Dallas Matron) is supposed to be Stewart's old college chum!! He must have been post, post grad and she was Freshman. Hey, I said it was nit-picky!!
I've read that the movie was actually poorly received and attended during its initial release. And that was at the height of Stewart's and Hitchcock's powers. The supreme inventive director of his day, he used interesting angles and zooming in and out cameras to get all his desired affects of vertigo. If there was better entertainment around in '58, with more star power, I'd be surprised, so why not a hit?? Were people nit-picky then too??