The Bronze Teeth 1 | Cowboys Don't Ride Unicorns by Tara Lain (.MP3) | Online Suits Sezonul - 2
Gladys Hamilton (Seattle) i was told that I can migos Rear Window free download, but I did not believe, especially the year 1954 New York. Michael Whitehead (Lexington) Alfred Hitchcock Rear Window free download Bluray at high speed, and even in the USA Cambridge.
Rear Window
Crime, Thriller, Mystery, Romance
IMDB rating:
Alfred Hitchcock
James Stewart as L. B. 'Jeff' Jefferies
Grace Kelly as Lisa Carol Fremont
Wendell Corey as Det. Lt. Thomas J. Doyle
Thelma Ritter as Stella
Raymond Burr as Lars Thorwald
Judith Evelyn as Miss Lonelyhearts
Ross Bagdasarian as Songwriter
Georgine Darcy as Miss Torso
Sara Berner as Wife living above Thorwalds
Frank Cady as Husband living above Thorwalds
Jesslyn Fax as Sculpting neighbor with hearing aid
Rand Harper as Newlywed man
Irene Winston as Mrs. Anna Thorwald
Havis Davenport as Newlywed woman
Storyline: Professional photographer L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries breaks his leg while getting an action shot at an auto race. Confined to his New York apartment, he spends his time looking out of the rear window observing the neighbors. He begins to suspect that a man across the courtyard may have murdered his wife. Jeff enlists the help of his high society fashion-consultant girlfriend Lisa Freemont and his visiting nurse Stella to investigate.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
720p 1200x720 px 5596 Mb h264 1536 Kbps mkv Download
iPhone 480x280 px 601 Mb xvid 600 Kbps mov Download
Quite puzzled as to how it got in to IMDb top 20
This movie being in IMDb top 20 puzzles me somewhat. I have seen most of the IMDb top 20 movies and they lived up to my expectations or exceeded expectations apart from perhaps The Dark Knight, Star Wars, and Lord of the ring. Those movies are up there understandably due the votes of the huge fan base. But how did Rear Window got up there? Due to the fan base of Hitchcock? Probably... and my be also due to the fact this is a pioneering movie of its genre. I can try and agree with reasons given by reviewers who has given very high rating for this movie. However, the whole package is bit disappointing, specially when you put this movie in current context. I cannot agree that this is a timeless classic. Anyway, you have to put my rating of 5 in context as well. I am rating it for the entertainment value forgetting about the fact that Hitchcock did this movie in 1954 and he was a pioneer of the genre.
A true classic. This film is... (yawn) ...sorry, what was I talking about?
This movie was a very influential piece by a very influential man. They tell me this flick changed the way some things were done in the movie business. I am told by others that this one is one of the truly best of Hitchcock's, well worth checking out. I, nevertheless walked into this movie with an open mind. A mind that quickly got bored.

I did like the caught-up-in-the-mystery feeling that flashed through a few scenes. I did like the famous drawl of James Stewart, and his character's wit throughout. And I am now interested in reading some of Cornel Woolrich's short stories, from which this screenplay was created. But still, I was bored.

Leaving behind the "importance" of this movie and only commenting on how it affected me, I only give it a four out of ten. On my personal rating scale that's counted as "not great, not horrible, don't bother." See it if you must. It is, after all, one of the talked about films in certain circles. If you have not seen it and end up in one of those circles, rest assured that the person extolling it's genius is most likely paraphrasing a magazine article he or she read last night and is not too sure what they are supposed to think about this one.
Very Overrated
I saw this film and thought little of it. I thought that most of the story was... bad. A man believes one of his neighbors committed murder. Okay, so you call the police. COMMON SENSE!!!

But then, what if the police don't find evidence, or don't believe you? Then FORGET ABOUT IT!!!

But then, what if you decide to be stupid and, despite being in a wheelchair, decide to stop him ultimately by force and your camera's flash, which surprisingly holds him at bay long enough for help to get there after, of course, you are knocked off a low balcony that you would survive the fall from. SO the killer will get caught after all. Oh yeah, if I killed, I would let the witness survive and get caught.

No common sense was put into this. Without it, most movies aren't very good. This is no exception, and stands as a very overrated movie.
Tremendous thriller. Classic Hitchcock.
In '54, I was seven years old and this is one of the first 'grown up' movies I remember seeing. I have seen it at least ten times since and realize seeing something different each time.

James Stewart is a photographer in a wheelchair recovering from an accident. He passes the time by watching his neighbors out his apartment window. He thinks that he witnessed a murder and has trouble convincing his girlfriend, Grace Kelly, to help prove a crime was committed.

Three scenes that always stuck with me:(1) Stewart fighting off his attacker with flashbulbs (2) the smoldering kiss (3) the glowing cigarette in the dark apartment.

Every bit a classic. I think this is THE BEST Hitchcock movie. No offense intended toward PSYCHO, but this movie has the more human aspects of fear and terror. This super cast includes Raymond Burr, Thelma Ritter and Wendell Corey.
Hated the ending

This movie could have been about a 9 but they built it all up to the most stupid and predictable ending ever!

Where was the twist?

What was the message? Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean your neighbors aren't trying to kill you...? Really disappointing.

Hitchcock had it primed to deliver a powerful ending with Stewart's paranoia either destroying his own life (getting his girlfriend jailed, his best friend fired, and losing his own mind) and/or destroying his neighbor's life for no reason (getting him arrested for murder even though his wife was still alive, or killing him/suicide out of fear).

The era this film was made demanded a much more wholesome ending. As a result we were forced to accept that despite all logic and evidence to the contrary, the paranoid crackpot murder theory of a shut-in depressed photographer was dead right from the beginning.

This film should be remade with a much more intelligent and thought provoking ending.
It didn't work for me, the suspense was missing. Great direction and acting.
I am aware that many people like this film a lot, and after many years it has indeed become a classic, and that's why I saw it for the first time yesterday. And I found it updated which is not very strange since we are talking about a film made in the early fifties. There is not much suspense in the plot mostly because as the story goes by, it is very obvious who the murderer is. The definition of suspense is: that the spectator should be guessing who the guilty person is, or even better: guessing who the bad guy is. In this film, we do know who the bad guy is, but we don't know if he really did it or not. Real suspense would have been that the guy that everyone thought that did it, in fact didn't did it at all, and that the one that looks innocent had done it. Now that would've been a twist! There are a couple of other things that killed the suspense in me. Why a man that is a photographer and tries to convince a policeman that his neighbor killed his wife and has no evidence and is looking through the window with a telephoto camera, doesn't take pictures of the scene of crime and use them as evidence. And how come that a man that is going to murder his wife and cut her in small pieces doesn't draw down the window blinds so no one can see what he is doing and testify against him. But I have to admit, Hitchcock gets away with it anyway, because he makes you see things that only a great director like him can. He will make you believe that Jeff and Lisa are right and everyone else is wrong just by watching this couple's attitude, created through their acting. And there is the strength of these actors; they are extremely reassuring in their personalities that as such, it impregnates the whole film. Just by the way they pose and sit and look you can almost smell that whatever they do is right. On the contrary, Thorwald hasn't a chance because from the very first scene he is doomed; he is the bad guy even before the film has started! And I intuitively guessed it and killed the suspense, sorry. I liked "Vertigo" even if some scenes are a little bit slow and long and I liked "Psycho", that's a masterpiece. But "Rear Window" it's just too obvious.
Some films show their age, and others do not. Despite its reputation as a classic of great film-making, Alfred Hitchcock's 1954 film Rear Window, unfortunately, shows its age far too much. No, it's certainly not a bad film, by any standard, and is a pretty good one, but it's not one of Hitchcock's best, much less a great film, nor deserving of any place in the Top 100 Films lists of the last few years. Technically, it deserves many plaudits, but what really fails is the screenplay, written originally by John Michael Hayes for a radio play, and adapted from a short story by Cornell Woolrich. Yes, one can suspend disbelief from night till day comes, but the whole idea that a man would murder his wife and cut up her body all in front of an open window is sheerly implausible, even back in the 1950s New York milieu the film takes place in. Even one of the film's characters, Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) comments on that fact, but it's not with irony, which only highlights the film's greatest failing- its implausibility.

Now, there are genres where the suspension of disbelief is absolutely essential. For example, one of my favorite films from childhood, the original Planet Of The Apes (1968) requires a great suspension of disbelief, far more so than Rear Window does. After all, the Charlton Heston character, Colonel Taylor, a veteran trained astronaut and scientist, goes throughout the whole film not recognizing the sun and moon, the constellations, the unlikely evolutionary odds that humans and apes could evolve anywhere but Earth, and that the apes speak English, no less! It's not until he sees the wreck of the Statue Of Liberty that he realizes he's back on our world. I was four or five when I first saw the film, and knew it was Earth a minute or two after the astronauts arrived on the Planet Of The Apes. Perhaps too closely studying books on geology and science destroys a youthful ability to suspend disbelief, but the rest of the film was so brilliantly satirical that the implausibilities were minor solecisms. In short, there is no story unless we accept these liberties with common sense, including the fact that the astronauts could be frozen in suspended animation for two eons. It's an all or none proposition- accept, or walk out of the theater. Genres that depend on the implausible- like sci fi and horror, demand such of their audience, and once given it's foolish to quibble over things like time travel, faster than light speed, aliens, modern dinosaurs, ghosts, atomic age mutants, or the like….The plot is well known…. While not a great film overall, Rear Window is a technically great film. The camera work by cinematographer Robert Burks is first rate, and the film goes over many standard Hitchcock themes such as voyeurism- especially apt in this cyberworld of 24/7 voyeurism, marriage as a horror, and challenging technical restrictions, as in Lifeboat and Rope. There are many small moments in the film that work for effect- such as pure mise-en-scene shots of Jeff or the neighbors doing minor things unrelated to the main tale. And, there is some comedy, such as after Jeff is tossed out the window, and Thorwald is arrested, Stella comments to the cops, 'I don't want any part of it', when asked about assisting in the search for Anna Thorwald's body. Still, none of the many pluses of the film are enough to lift the film up from a good, solid period piece, for Rear Window's reputation is based largely upon its claim to being a slice of 'realism'. It's not. It's far closer to melodrama with its reliance on coincidences and implausibilities- not to mention the very sexism of the premise that a woman is so predictable that even her murder can be deduced by small deviances from that predictability, to propel the main action along. And melodrama, while it can often be great fun, is almost never great art. Rear Window is vastly overrated, and no exception that proves the rule. It is the rule, and that's a fact no amount of suspended disbelief can alter.
Excellent. Sharp, clever, funny, inventive, with great values all round.
Ah it's a movie that's in IMDB's Top 20, and it has good reason to be. For starter's let's look at the simple premise - James Stewart is L. B. Jeffries, a photographer who is currently recovering from an injury on assignment. With his broken leg he's stuck in his apartment, with nothing better to do than spy on his neighbours and be visited by his girlfriend, Lisa Carol Fremont (Grace Kelly), his officer friend Wendell, and his nurse, Stella. Jeffries observes the coming and goings of the various apartments he can observe (from his rear apartment window) and it is one of these - a Raymond Burr - who draws his attention because. could it be that the man has committed some heinous crime? Let's find out.

One of the beautiful things about the movie is its superb use of location. The whole movie, bar a couple of brief scenes, is set in the apartment. This would seem claustrophobic but Hitchcock never inhibits us like this - he lets us escape through Jeffries binoculars and camera lenses, and his roving camera swoops down to let us see what the characters see (but never, thankfully, anything more than that - this is how you do suspense!). The set design is wonderful - the apartment is just the right size and is nicely laid out. However the real praise is for all the other apartments visible to Jeffries - an actual habitable set with multiple stories where characters can be observed only as they pass by their own windows (yeah, they don't care much for curtains). There's a sense of individuality gone in to each home, despite the fact we can only see barely elements of each. This is helped by a nice, differing range of characters inhabiting each and going about their daily lives - there's a mini soap-opera contained in the movie, all observed at a distance. Excellent stuff.

Acting? It's great here. There's some nice depth to the characters here, with them feeling like actual real people rather than slick one-dimensional tags. Stewart is very proficient in this type of role - he was born to it - and Kelly proves she is more than just a pretty face, managing to effuse her character with both grace (*groan*) and steel. Even supporting characters like Stella are good (she has a wickedly black sense of thinking that's hilarious). What's so incredible is that the characters we observe from a distance in the other apartments (and with whom we never actually interact with) have as much depth as most main characters in movies nowadays. Excellent script and acting in this movie.

I've already praised Hitchcock's set location and camera work, so I won't prattle on about him much more. He does a stellar job here and, in my opinion, this is the best piece of work he's done (that I've seen). It's virtually flawless and you're never let down (or bored). Well done. It's a shame he lost out on an Oscar (although he did have tough competition that year with `On the Waterfront').

`Rear Window' is a great example of how you can successfully have sharp acting, script, and directing and not feel the need for a slew of swear words and gratuitous violence. Regarded as a classic, and deservedly so. 9.1/10
Dated, slow, plastic, and predictable.

Perhaps my expectations were too high, having read reviews over the years.

That said,it is what it is, and does not stand up against the test of time. A great counter: "12 Angry Men" stands up. Sure, it has some cliché characters/lines..but the story brilliantly unfolds.

Not a true spoiler, but perhaps characters can thought of as such. The angry couple, dumpy neighbor, dancer, lonely heart, etc. ZZZZ. Reads like a sophomore play, and screens as the same.

Shots of each character, as James Stewart see them across the court yard through his rear window. Continues throughout the movie with scenes of the characters lives and daily goings on.

However, never builds to the point of leading to viewer to care.

Save 2 hours of your life, and watch a true classic. You'll be grateful to have missed this one.
Lots to see, even on a third viewing
Made around the same time that televisions started to become an essential part of the home, 'Rear Window' paints an interesting time capsule of a society devoid of television, where the only entertainment if stuck at home all day is watching the neighbours' activities. In fact, 'Rear Window' could even be seen as a film about television, with Jeffries, the protagonist, switching views of other apartments just like a man constantly changing channels on his television set. As Thelma Ritter's character Stella says, "We have become a race of peeping toms", relating to a key issue of the film: the voyeuristic tendencies of society.

Although it would not be made for another twelve years, the film bears a strong resemblance to 'Blowup', with Jeffries stating that "right now, I'd welcome trouble", an indication that his mind is overactive, searching for something interesting to follow. And with his detective friend, a character representing the devil's advocate, we are constantly hanging on the edge, weighing up the evidence for ourselves. We are also able to do more investigating than what the characters themselves conduct. In different windows, different events occur, some of which the protagonists note, and others of which we ourselves observe only.

The cinematography helps a lot in serving this cause. There are at least a couple of shots that scan the courtyard and then go back into Jeffries' apartment. These shots at first appear to be taken from the perspective of the characters, but since they do not end on the characters looking out the window, Hitchcock establishes a separation between us and the characters. We are learning more about what is happening outside when they are distracted. The way we are introduced to Jeffries also probes us to investigate: first we see his leg, then photos of accidents, and only later do we realise that the photographs are of potential accidents, rather than photos of his accident.

The opening shots of the film are amazing. Three blinds are slowly opened in the background as the main credits roll, just like how we are slowly opening our eyes as the film begins. Then the camera goes through the window, explores the courtyard, and finally ends up inside Jeffries' apartment, and on a perfectly focused shot of Jeffries. Another great shot is Lisa's first scene, where she kisses Jeffries in slow motion, almost as if it is a dream. The film is full of great shots and excellent camera-work, and to think - Hitchcock probably had to call most of those shots from the distance! It's a very fine directorial achievement.

Speaking of Hitchcock, his cameo here serves more purpose than in any other film of his. Before Thorwald notices that he is being watched, Hitch is the only character to actually look back at Jeffries. And aside from that, it's quite interesting with the whole relationship that is then established between director, actor, film, audience: the whole chain that is controlling what we are seeing. If nothing else, Hitch's cameo reminds us that even though we see more than what the characters are see, we only ever see ourselves what he allows us to see.
Roland J. Tran (Saint Paul) i was looking for a movie free Rear Window download, as 720p to download it in 1954, one of the first Alfred Hitchcock Tallahassee. Clara J. Lovett (Buffalo) i love how they play James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter, Raymond Burr, Judith Evelyn, Ross Bagdasarian, Georgine Darcy, Sara Berner, Frank Cady, Jesslyn Fax, Rand Harper, Irene Winston, Havis Davenport, Marla English from the movie director Alfred Hitchcock 1954 Miami.