i liked it, but i thought that the ending needed more detail. i was always waiting for the part where they would show why the birds came and what it had to do with the woman, but it never came. your opinion?
2007-02-10 02:02:05 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
No need, Hitchcock's movies started with suspense and ended that way.
By the way they are going to remake this movie, it is due in 2009!
########################################
Here is why the movie ended that way:
The film did not finish with the usual "THE END" title because Alfred Hitchcock wanted to give the impression of unending terror.
###########################################
Some interesting facts bout the movie:
A number of endings were being considered for this film. One that was considered would have showed the Golden Gate Bridge completely covered by birds.
Rod Taylor claims that the seagulls were fed a mixture of wheat and whiskey. It was the only way to get them to stand around so much.
In May 2001, the son of "The Birds" novelist Daphne Du Maurier reported that he and his wife were being terrorized by seagulls nesting outside their cottage in Cornwall, England.
The scene where Tippi Hedren is ravaged by birds near the end of the movie took a week to shoot. The birds were attached to her clothes by long nylon threads so they could not get away.
2007-02-10 02:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by DECEMBER 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Typical Hitchcock... suspense. Anything they would have explained in the movie about why would have paled in comparison to what you came up with on your own. Different things scare different people for different reasons. Ever had a flock of hungry seagulls go after popcorn or french fries while you are holding them?
I thought the movie was great, but did wonder why the birds decided to swarm the town. The movie is loosely based on an incident in Ca when birds invaded a small coastal town there.
2007-02-10 10:14:10 · answer #2 · answered by Jay M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I remember being really scared by the scene of the dead man without eyes when I was a kid, it stuck with me for a long time. Now that I'm older, it does not have the same effect, yet it's still interesting to watch. I like the fact that they don't explain where the birds came from. It leaves more mystery to the story, and it makes me wonder what I would do if it happened where I lived today.
2007-02-10 12:17:56 · answer #3 · answered by crash 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it took away from the film at all not to explain the origins of the birds' revolt.
When I was a kid, that film used to scare the bejeezus out of me! That scene where the crows are attacking the schoolkids, in particular, used to freak me out!
2007-02-10 13:50:36 · answer #4 · answered by shkspr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitch wanted that uncertainly as to whether they would make it
(A convertable and the Birds were stirring. Perhaps not)
2007-02-10 10:08:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In it's day, it was a good film, but it is not a GREAT film; it does not stand the test of time. To view it now, it seems lacking in suspense and intrigue, and you are right-- there really is no explanation , so as a viewer, taking the ride is not worth the trip.
2007-02-10 15:55:48 · answer #6 · answered by Clementine 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Scary as ****. I don't like big flocks of birds anymore, and it doesn't help that my school has a personal battalion of seagulls :S
2007-02-10 10:05:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its pretty cul. i sw the blck and white version.I lso think tht hitch should hve mde a definte ending insted of leing everyone hengin!
2007-02-10 10:09:44 · answer #8 · answered by Answer Person 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I felt the same as you. I don't think it is one Hitchcock's better works.
2007-02-10 10:06:14 · answer #9 · answered by babydoll 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so so fly...
2007-02-10 10:12:07 · answer #10 · answered by killeur killeur 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋