Um milionário da alta sociedade de San Francisco persegue a uma possível namorada em uma pequena cidade de California.Um milionário da alta sociedade de San Francisco persegue a uma possível namorada em uma pequena cidade de California.Um milionário da alta sociedade de San Francisco persegue a uma possível namorada em uma pequena cidade de California.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Indicado a 1 Oscar
- 5 vitórias e 7 indicações no total
Tippi Hedren
- Melanie Daniels
- (as 'Tippi' Hedren)
Bill Quinn
- Sam
- (as William Quinn)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
Despite spending most of his career within the realms of the thriller genre, Alfred Hitchcock hasn't restricted himself where variation is concerned. Most of his best work represents a different type of thriller, and The Birds is no different. It is often said that Psycho is Hitchcock's first foray into the horror side of the thriller, and it is indeed; but it's not the complete horror film that The Birds is. Often cited as an obvious influence for Night of the Living Dead, The Birds follows Melanie Daniels as she travels to the seaside town of Bodega Bay with a pair of lovebirds for Mitch Brenner, an eligible bachelor that she met in a pet shop in San Francisco. However, while there the birds of the coastal town begin to attack the residents and so begins a terrifying tale of man's feathered friends waging a war against humanity...
It could be said that the plot of The Birds is ridiculous, and it is. The idea of birds, a type of animal that isn't aggressive, attacking humans despite living with us for millions of years is preposterous and is never likely to happen. However; it is here where the film's horror potency lies. Birds live with us in harmony; we're so used to them that for the most part we don't even realise that they're there, and the idea of something that we don't notice suddenly becoming malicious is truly terrifying. Especially when that something is unstoppable, as the birds are portrayed as being in this film. The fact that the birds' motive is never really explained only serves in making it more terrifying, as it would appear that somewhere along the line they've just decided to attack. Of course, the film could be interpreted as having Melanie's arrival, or the presence of the lovebirds as the cause for it all; but we don't really know. This bounds the film in reality as if there was a reason given, it might be improbable; but there's no true reason given (although there are several theories), so it can't be improbable!
The first forty minutes of the film feature hardly any - if any - horror at all. Hitchcock spends this part of the movie developing the characters and installing their situation in the viewers' minds, so that when the horror does finally come along, it has a definite potency that it would not have had otherwise. In fact, at first the birds themselves come across as a co-star in their own movie as there are brief references towards them, but they never get their full dues. However, once the horror does start, it comes thick and fast. Hitchcock, the master craftsman as always, uses his famous montage effects and never really shows you anything; but because you're being bombarded with so many different shots, you'd never realise it. Many people have tried to copy this technique, but most have failed. Hitchcock, however, has it down to an art and this is maybe the film that shows off that talent the best. There are numerous moments of suspense as well, many of which are truly nail biting. We see the birds amassing and ready to strike - but they don't. And this is much more frightening than showing an attack from the off. Hitchcock knows this. The final thirty minutes of The Birds is perhaps the most thrilling of his entire oeuvre. First, Hitchcock gives us an intriguing situation where numerous inhabitants of the town give their views on the events, and also explains the birds' situation with humans, even giving the audience an angle of expertise from an ornithologist's point of view. He then follows it up with a truly breathtaking sequence of horror that hasn't been matched since for relentless shock value.
Hitchcock has made many great films, and this certainly stands up as one of them. Here, Hitchcock gives a lesson in film directing and creates a truly macabre piece of work in the process. I dread to think what the state of cinema would have been if Hitchcock had never picked up a camera, but luckily for us; he most certainly did.
It could be said that the plot of The Birds is ridiculous, and it is. The idea of birds, a type of animal that isn't aggressive, attacking humans despite living with us for millions of years is preposterous and is never likely to happen. However; it is here where the film's horror potency lies. Birds live with us in harmony; we're so used to them that for the most part we don't even realise that they're there, and the idea of something that we don't notice suddenly becoming malicious is truly terrifying. Especially when that something is unstoppable, as the birds are portrayed as being in this film. The fact that the birds' motive is never really explained only serves in making it more terrifying, as it would appear that somewhere along the line they've just decided to attack. Of course, the film could be interpreted as having Melanie's arrival, or the presence of the lovebirds as the cause for it all; but we don't really know. This bounds the film in reality as if there was a reason given, it might be improbable; but there's no true reason given (although there are several theories), so it can't be improbable!
The first forty minutes of the film feature hardly any - if any - horror at all. Hitchcock spends this part of the movie developing the characters and installing their situation in the viewers' minds, so that when the horror does finally come along, it has a definite potency that it would not have had otherwise. In fact, at first the birds themselves come across as a co-star in their own movie as there are brief references towards them, but they never get their full dues. However, once the horror does start, it comes thick and fast. Hitchcock, the master craftsman as always, uses his famous montage effects and never really shows you anything; but because you're being bombarded with so many different shots, you'd never realise it. Many people have tried to copy this technique, but most have failed. Hitchcock, however, has it down to an art and this is maybe the film that shows off that talent the best. There are numerous moments of suspense as well, many of which are truly nail biting. We see the birds amassing and ready to strike - but they don't. And this is much more frightening than showing an attack from the off. Hitchcock knows this. The final thirty minutes of The Birds is perhaps the most thrilling of his entire oeuvre. First, Hitchcock gives us an intriguing situation where numerous inhabitants of the town give their views on the events, and also explains the birds' situation with humans, even giving the audience an angle of expertise from an ornithologist's point of view. He then follows it up with a truly breathtaking sequence of horror that hasn't been matched since for relentless shock value.
Hitchcock has made many great films, and this certainly stands up as one of them. Here, Hitchcock gives a lesson in film directing and creates a truly macabre piece of work in the process. I dread to think what the state of cinema would have been if Hitchcock had never picked up a camera, but luckily for us; he most certainly did.
This is one of Hitchcock's most well-known movies. Along with Psycho, it's the movie that most people identify with him. Many pages have been written about it and surely there will be more. I know that the superb technical aspects of the movie have been discussed a lot, so I'll try to focus on something I noticed yesterday when I watched it.
It's scarier when there are no birds on screen. The tension, the silence, the uncertainty, the mystery. That's what suspense is about.
I was amazed of how carefully Hitchcock builds the suspense in this movie. You watch the birds standing there, and they do not move, they are just waiting. Even when you think they are dumb something tells you they are thinking. They are analyzing your moves.
This was possible with the aid of a top-notch screenplay, and great performances of the actors. This was probably the most difficult film for Hitchcock, specially for the technical aspects that were involved, but when you watch it, it really was worth the pain.
The main plot is well-known: Melanie Daniels(Tippi Hedren),a young girl goes to Bodega Bay looking for Mitch Brenner(Rod Taylor),a handsome man she met in San Francisco, when suddenly, the birds start attacking humans by no reason. Pretty straight forward, and by this date very outdated, but Hitchcock adds his magic and the script spices this with the very complex relationships between the characters.
The complex relationship between Mitch and his mother Lydia(played by Jessica Tandy), and the conflict that she has with Melanie is very interesting and brings back memories from Psycho. Also, Melanie's relationship with her own mother and the bond that she creates with Lydia and Mitch's 11 years old sister Cathy(Veronica Cartwright) is fascinating.
The scene when the four of them are trapped inside the house with the birds waiting outside is classic; not only is, as I wrote above, a perfect example of the use of suspense, it is an awesome study of the characters and how their relation grows. I think that this particular movie was main inspiration for George A. Romero's claustrophobic climax in his landmark film "Night of the Living Dead"(1968).
The technical aspects may be the focus of many studies, but the characters deserve to be praised, even the support cast with a few lines develop a personality of their own. The restaurant scene is Hitchcock at his best with witty dialogs that are both humorous and creepy. Very good ensemble.
Overall, this is an awesome movie, many reviewers have said it, I know. But I wanted to point that beyond the technical advances this experimental movie features, it is a perfect example of why Alfred Hitchcock is considered, "The Master of Suspense".
9/10. Classic.
It's scarier when there are no birds on screen. The tension, the silence, the uncertainty, the mystery. That's what suspense is about.
I was amazed of how carefully Hitchcock builds the suspense in this movie. You watch the birds standing there, and they do not move, they are just waiting. Even when you think they are dumb something tells you they are thinking. They are analyzing your moves.
This was possible with the aid of a top-notch screenplay, and great performances of the actors. This was probably the most difficult film for Hitchcock, specially for the technical aspects that were involved, but when you watch it, it really was worth the pain.
The main plot is well-known: Melanie Daniels(Tippi Hedren),a young girl goes to Bodega Bay looking for Mitch Brenner(Rod Taylor),a handsome man she met in San Francisco, when suddenly, the birds start attacking humans by no reason. Pretty straight forward, and by this date very outdated, but Hitchcock adds his magic and the script spices this with the very complex relationships between the characters.
The complex relationship between Mitch and his mother Lydia(played by Jessica Tandy), and the conflict that she has with Melanie is very interesting and brings back memories from Psycho. Also, Melanie's relationship with her own mother and the bond that she creates with Lydia and Mitch's 11 years old sister Cathy(Veronica Cartwright) is fascinating.
The scene when the four of them are trapped inside the house with the birds waiting outside is classic; not only is, as I wrote above, a perfect example of the use of suspense, it is an awesome study of the characters and how their relation grows. I think that this particular movie was main inspiration for George A. Romero's claustrophobic climax in his landmark film "Night of the Living Dead"(1968).
The technical aspects may be the focus of many studies, but the characters deserve to be praised, even the support cast with a few lines develop a personality of their own. The restaurant scene is Hitchcock at his best with witty dialogs that are both humorous and creepy. Very good ensemble.
Overall, this is an awesome movie, many reviewers have said it, I know. But I wanted to point that beyond the technical advances this experimental movie features, it is a perfect example of why Alfred Hitchcock is considered, "The Master of Suspense".
9/10. Classic.
Hitchcock bragged that The Birds was pure fantasy, with no connection to real life (as we know it). I've seen this movie a few times and I still wonder what it "means," if it has a specific meaning. It might just be a horror film about preternatural killer birds, but I humbly suggest that it might, in a sense, be an allegory about the Nuclear Paranoia of the era. Not an exact allegory like "Pilgrim's Progress," but perhaps a parable, or a fable if you like, with the birds standing in for all those forces ready to kill innocent people for no good reason. "The Birds" is so richly suggestive that there's an Oedipal theme as well, and some hints that Mitch isn't a very admirable guy, and so on... very Kubrickian, but predating "2001" by 4 or 5 years. It's a film that can simply entertain, or frighten, or hold one's interest, without begging for interpretation. But it's fun to wonder what the writer and director were thinking, and how much the actors/actresses knew of the artistic intent of the filmmakers. It's interesting too that after "Psycho," with its classic musical score, Hitchcock made "The Birds" a 2-hour film with no music - except the squawks, clucks and cries of The Birds. Wonderful picture.
What if..... imagine the unthinkable happened, and all of a sudden, The Birds attacked....
You have to hand it to Hitchcock, he knew how to scare people, by taking the ordinary, the everyday, and twisting it around, and making it scary, he did that pretty much to perfection here.
So the first half of the movie is slow, it's almost sedate, not a lot actually happens, however the second half is completely different, you can only imagine what audiences back in 1963 thought, as of 2022 it still terrifies.
It looks really good, the special effects for the time actually hold up very well.
Tippi Hedren is impressive as Melanie, it's a very sincere, strong performance.
The next time you put some bird food out for the jackdaws and magpies.....just wonder what if, what if the unthinkable did actually happen!
Great hooror from the real master of suspense, 9/10.
You have to hand it to Hitchcock, he knew how to scare people, by taking the ordinary, the everyday, and twisting it around, and making it scary, he did that pretty much to perfection here.
So the first half of the movie is slow, it's almost sedate, not a lot actually happens, however the second half is completely different, you can only imagine what audiences back in 1963 thought, as of 2022 it still terrifies.
It looks really good, the special effects for the time actually hold up very well.
Tippi Hedren is impressive as Melanie, it's a very sincere, strong performance.
The next time you put some bird food out for the jackdaws and magpies.....just wonder what if, what if the unthinkable did actually happen!
Great hooror from the real master of suspense, 9/10.
Melanie Daniels meets Mitch Brenner at a pet shop where he has come to buy some birds for his young sister. They have a conflict of words but he sparks her interest and she travels up to his small town to see him again. Daniels stays in the town for the weekend despite the tension between her and Brenner's mother. However this is not the only source of worry as the locals begin to notice that the birds are acting out of character and showing signs of aggression.
I came to this film because my mother mentioned she was scared of birds as a result of seeing this when she was young. So I went for it with highs hopes that were not disappointed on the whole. The basic plot is just that basic. But it allows plenty of disturbing scenes of bird attack as well as a nice slow build. The effects have dated and it doesn't look as impressive now, but it still has an impact. More importantly the film has a rich side-plot about themes that carry over from Psycho about mother's and sons. Not quite as far out as that film, this still has plenty of meat for anyone looking to analyse it further.
Hedren is OK in the lead but I found her to be just giving the same performance as every `dangerous blonde' does in Hitchcock films. But she is the predator of the film and she does it pretty well. Taylor is a good stock B movie actor type but looking at him I couldn't help picturing Cary Grant doing the role and it took away from Taylor. Tandy looked old even then, but she does really well with a complex role of the mother. Pleshette is a little annoying but still ok
Most people see this as a horror film, but it is much more than that. The ending is quite low key but it worked well with the overall feeling of menace in the birds, but it's worth remembering that this is not the ending Hitchcock wanted. His first choice, the Golden Gate bridge covered in birds, couldn't be done due to a tight budget.
Overall this is a great bit of Hitchcock that works on several levels. The horror will have you sweating when walking through groups of pigeons in city centres and the subtext will keep you in the pub for several hours.
I came to this film because my mother mentioned she was scared of birds as a result of seeing this when she was young. So I went for it with highs hopes that were not disappointed on the whole. The basic plot is just that basic. But it allows plenty of disturbing scenes of bird attack as well as a nice slow build. The effects have dated and it doesn't look as impressive now, but it still has an impact. More importantly the film has a rich side-plot about themes that carry over from Psycho about mother's and sons. Not quite as far out as that film, this still has plenty of meat for anyone looking to analyse it further.
Hedren is OK in the lead but I found her to be just giving the same performance as every `dangerous blonde' does in Hitchcock films. But she is the predator of the film and she does it pretty well. Taylor is a good stock B movie actor type but looking at him I couldn't help picturing Cary Grant doing the role and it took away from Taylor. Tandy looked old even then, but she does really well with a complex role of the mother. Pleshette is a little annoying but still ok
Most people see this as a horror film, but it is much more than that. The ending is quite low key but it worked well with the overall feeling of menace in the birds, but it's worth remembering that this is not the ending Hitchcock wanted. His first choice, the Golden Gate bridge covered in birds, couldn't be done due to a tight budget.
Overall this is a great bit of Hitchcock that works on several levels. The horror will have you sweating when walking through groups of pigeons in city centres and the subtext will keep you in the pub for several hours.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesWhen audiences left the U.K. premiere at the Odeon, Leicester Square, London, they were greeted by the sound of screeching and flapping birds from loudspeakers hidden in the trees to scare them further.
- Erros de gravaçãoEven though later in the film it is shown that the birds can make their way into buildings, the bird attack scene at the schoolhouse makes no sense. Having the children run all the way down the road during the bird attack was far more dangerous than staying in the school, or if they wanted to seek shelter in a building without such large windows they could have run the much shorter distance to Annie's house just beyond the school.
The point of this was for Melanie and Annie to get the children to leave the school and head back to their homes in a quiet and orderly fashion; they did not anticipate the birds would attack straight away.
- Citações
Mother in Diner: [to Melanie] Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this? They said when you got here the whole thing started. Who are you? What are you? Where did you come from? I think you're the cause of all of this. I think you're evil. EVIL!
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosThere were no ending credits. And in the opening credits the title "THE BIRDS" was slowly pecked away by the passing crows.
- Versões alternativasThe Australian theatrical version removed 25 seconds of the bloodied farmer with eyes pecked out to gain a 'Suitable Only For Adults' rating in Australia. After said rating was retired in 1970, it was later re-classified 'PG' in its uncut version.
- ConexõesEdited into Cada ver es... (1981)
- Trilhas sonorasRissle-dy, Rossle-dy
(uncredited)
("I married my wife in the month of June")
Derived from the traditional Scottish folk song "The Wee Cooper o'Fife"
Additional lyrics by Evan Hunter
Sung by the schoolchildren
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is The Birds?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- Los pájaros
- Locações de filme
- 835 Bay Hwy, Bodega Bay, Califórnia, EUA(The Tides Restaurant)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 2.500.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 54.531
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 59 min(119 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente