This morning I saw Alfred Hitcock's The Lady Vanishes.
It is the first of his movies I have ever seen, (though I have seen the new versions of Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Easy Virtue). I really enjoyed this movie, terrific all around. And it has now pushed me to see more of his movies.

Watching the end of ROTK on TNT. Lord of the Rings is still the best book-to-movie adaptation I've seen yet. Most loyal to the original source in terms of plot and characters, even if they had to cut a lot out. A big advantage in the adaptations is that they made each three-hours long on the theatrical release. If any of the three LOTR films were under three hours, I am certain they would have done poorly simply due to time issues.

I also watched The Dark Knight last night and will be again tonight on TNT as well (for background noise). Perhaps the best of the super-hero films. Heath Ledger delivers one of the best villain performances ever, though it unfortunately cost him his life. The plot is amazingly deep and makes you want more. Certainly deserving of the accolades it received and some Oscars that it should have won but didn't.

narnian1, glad you enjoyed your first Hitchcock! Definetly post here about your thoughts on any others of his you see.

I have to warn you though, The Lady Vanishes isn't really the same sort of movie as the ones he's more famous for (i.e., Psycho, The Birds, Rear Window, etc). The Lady Vanishes was one of his earlier works and it's much more light-hearted and fun. It's actually one of my favorite of his for that very reason, but he's better known for his more macabre films such as Vertigo or Rope.

EDIT: re: book-to-movie adaptions...I think the best adaption I've ever seen was Revolutionary Road, based off the novel by Richard Yates. When I read the book after seeing the movie, it was literally word for word from the film.

While I'm on the subject of adaptions, I'm not sure if Cracks is a really horrid adaption or a really awful adaption. I don't know if anyone here has read it/seen it (it deals with some pretty disturbing material), but the ending of the movie was literally a complete 180 from the book, like literally. Everything else was fine, but they totally changed the end (I'm assuming, to make it easier to watch for viewers, although it made less sense and was much less psychologically interesting)...

Oh! And the recent-ish film from Five Children and It was pretty much a rip off of the LWW film. I'm SO serious. Watch it, and you'll see...

narnian1, glad you enjoyed your first Hitchcock! Definitely post here about your thoughts on any others of his you see.

I have to warn you though, The Lady Vanishes isn't really the same sort of movie as the ones he's more famous for (i.e., Psycho, The Birds, Rear Window, etc). The Lady Vanishes was one of his earlier works and it's much more light-hearted and fun. It's actually one of my favorite of his for that very reason, but he's better known for his more macabre films such as Vertigo or Rope.

EDIT: re: book-to-movie adaptions...I think the best adaption I've ever seen was Revolutionary Road, based off the novel by Richard Yates. When I read the book after seeing the movie, it was literally word for word from the film.

Oh! And the recent-ish film from Five Children and It was pretty much a rip off of the LWW film. I'm SO serious. Watch it, and you'll see...

About Hitchcock,
I know. That's why I have avoided his movies so much up to now. It was nice to see he was able to do something more lighthearted. I will be going into his other stuff with caution though.

Revolutionary Road,
I thought that movie was great. Best part was Kate Winslet for me. I love that she won her Oscar that year, though it was for The Reader. The Reader was a very good movie, (not recommended at all to younger viewers), I enjoyed it a lot despite the first half being so... It helped build up for the second half. But I personally preferred her role in RR.

It's funny that you mention that last movie, LWW ripoff. I saw that available on Netflix and queued it. But then for some reason, no idea why, I assumed it'd be knocking off Narnia, so I removed it. I just speculated, which I know I shouldn't have done, it's probably good in its own right. Still, I chose not to see it.

Wait, Narnia1. Let me get this straight. You have no problem watching The Walking Dead and yet you're being cautious when it comes to watching Hitchcock movies? I don't understand you.

Warrior 4 Jesus, I started that show with caution at first too actually. With Hitchcock, it's his reputation that scares me off, (not him personally). Maybe I just misunderstand Hitchcock .

His reputation? He's a greatly respected movie maker, what's not to love?

I'd greatly recommend watching some Hitchcock films. If you're expecting something scary they're very tame by today's standards. At worst they're unsettling. And not every film comes close to the horror genre (if you can really call Hitchcock "horror"), more drama, and especially suspense.

@FencerforJesus: I noticed that they were showing The Return of the King on TNT also.
I completely agree that it is the best book to film adaptation!

I refuse to watch it on TV though because me and my sister insist upon watching it from the beginning to the end , and more importantly they are not the extended editions!
And the commercials take away even more of the movie.
My Dad will always turn it on when it is showing on TV to see how long it will take me and my sister to hear it from the other room, needless to say, it hardly takes us a second to rush to the room.

@Narnian1: I hope you enjoy the rest of Alfred Hitchcock’s films,

My favorites are:
Rear Window
Vertigo
Rope
To Catch a Thief
The Man Who Knew to Much
The Birds

My mom introduced me to Alfred Hitchcock when I was younger, I think if I remember right The Birds was the first Alfred Hitchcock film I ever saw.

The first Hitchcock movie I saw was The 39 Steps. I thought it was directed well and looked good but I was royally peeved that it was so different from the book.

Shadowlander, yes, it's true that Hitchcock would be considered more of a director of suspense than horror but I still find Psycho ridiculously creepy. His other movies are just good fun.

I usually prefer not to watch movies on TV as well. When I do, it's for background noise when I don't really care to pay attention to the film. As as for LOTR, I too greatly prefer the extended editions. They are simply better, contain more of the original source, and actually complete the film even better.

I would hope that if you give Hitchcock a chance, that you would also excuse some of the aspects of his filmmaking that time has not dealt well with. There are techniques that are silly and out of fashion today. But no one is better at creating suspense and plot. I would recommend To Catch a Thief as an excellent "starter." It was my first film of his.

I recently watched Casino Royale and I was pleasantly surprised. It was my first James Bond film, so I had an idea of what to expect, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. I've heard that the older Bond films are a little less serious and at times a bit laughable. Is that the case? And if so, are they still worth watching?

I have taken note of all the Hitchcock recommended movies, however I am beginning the easy way- everything that is available instantly on Netflix first.

The 39 Steps is the current movie.

Razzie noms have been listed. And two movies are hot at the top of the list: Twilight: Eclipse and Last Airbender with 9 nominations each. I refuse to pay any sort of money to see Twilight and Last Airbender could have been so much better.

The Last Airbender could have been much better I agree. As for Twilight, I must confess to being a fan- guilty pleasure.