|
|
| Next: 1944 version of "The Lodger" |
| Author |
Message |
John External

Since: Aug 09, 2003 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: Number 13 Archived from groups: alt>movies>hitchcock (more info?) |
|
|
It's hard to feel any affection for this mess of a movie. The comedy
displayed by the silly actors (for want of a better word) fails to
amuse, and there are no moments of suspense to relieve the viewer from
straining to hear their inane lines from the poorly recorded sound. The
chase at the end is flat and confusing, and the editing throughout the
film is sloppy. I still say Hitchcock must have been kidnapped by a less
clever director. I'm glad he was released to make "The Man Who Knew Too
Much." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigsilentfan External

Since: Jan 13, 2005 Posts: 564
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Number 13 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?) |
|
|
On Mar 26, 12:50?am, West18j... DeleteThis @webtv.net (John) wrote:
> It's hard to feel any affection for this mess of a movie. The comedy
> displayed by the silly actors (for want of a better word) fails to
> amuse, and there are no moments of suspense to relieve the viewer from
> straining to hear their inane lines from the poorly recorded sound. The
> chase at the end is flat and confusing, and the editing throughout the
> film is sloppy. I still say Hitchcock must have been kidnapped by a less
> clever director. I'm glad he was released to make "The Man Who Knew Too
> Much."
It was all I could do to watch this film once and that was more than
enough wasted time. There are many other (but not all) Hitchcock
films that can be enjoyed again and again.
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Marmalade_man External

Since: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 2
|
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: Re: Number 13 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?) |
|
|
On Mar 26, 2:33 pm, bigsilent... RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:
> On Mar 26, 12:50?am, West18j... RemoveThis @webtv.net (John) wrote:
>
> > It's hard to feel any affection for this mess of a movie. The comedy
> > displayed by the silly actors (for want of a better word) fails to
> > amuse, and there are no moments of suspense to relieve the viewer from
> > straining to hear their inane lines from the poorly recorded sound. The
> > chase at the end is flat and confusing, and the editing throughout the
> > film is sloppy. I still say Hitchcock must have been kidnapped by a less
> > clever director. I'm glad he was released to make "The Man Who Knew Too
> > Much."
>
> It was all I could do to watch this film once and that was more than
> enough wasted time. There are many other (but not all) Hitchcock
> films that can be enjoyed again and again.
>
> Rich
Hi John and Rich:
Am I missing something?
Where did you get access to Hitchcock's film NUMBER 13?
I thought it was unfininished and that all footage was lost.
Best wishes,
- Vic |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sawakatoome External

Since: Feb 26, 2005 Posts: 260
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: Re: Number 13 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?) |
|
|
What the?!
I obviously got confused. I thought they were talking about 'Number
Seventeen'.
Now that you mention it Vic, 'Number Thirteen' doesn't actually exist,
does it? .. or so I thought.
Fergal #.
On Apr 4, 1:16 pm, "Marmalade_man" <marmalade_....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2:33 pm, bigsilent....DeleteThis@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 12:50?am, West18j....DeleteThis@webtv.net (John) wrote:
>
> > > It's hard to feel any affection for this mess of a movie. The comedy
> > > displayed by the silly actors (for want of a better word) fails to
> > > amuse, and there are no moments of suspense to relieve the viewer from
> > > straining to hear their inane lines from the poorly recorded sound. The
> > > chase at the end is flat and confusing, and the editing throughout the
> > > film is sloppy. I still say Hitchcock must have been kidnapped by a less
> > > clever director. I'm glad he was released to make "The Man Who Knew Too
> > > Much."
>
> > It was all I could do to watch this film once and that was more than
> > enough wasted time. There are many other (but not all) Hitchcock
> > films that can be enjoyed again and again.
>
> > Rich
>
> Hi John and Rich:
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Where did you get access to Hitchcock's film NUMBER 13?
> I thought it was unfininished and that all footage was lost.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> - Vic- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text - |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Old Movie Fan External

Since: Jan 19, 2005 Posts: 163
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Number 13 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?) |
|
|
Sorry, looks like I jumped in without double checking. It was "Number
Seventeen" that we were slamming.
More proof that it's forgettable,
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John External

Since: Aug 09, 2003 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:26 am Post subject: Re: Number 17 (was Number 13) [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?) |
|
|
Sorry for being at the wrong address. It's not the first time, I'm
afraid.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|