The Birds [DVD]

Price: $8.70
(as of Sep 16, 2024 21:07:59 UTC – Details)

Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds is an unforgettable masterpiece that is considered one of the most terrifying films from the Master of Suspense. When beautiful, blonde Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) travels to Bodega Bay in pursuit of eligible bachelor Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor), she is inexplicably attacked by a seagull. Suddenly, thousands of birds begin to flock into town, preying on schoolchildren and residents in a terrifying series of attacks. Mitch and Melanie must fight for their lives against a deadly force that cannot be explained or stopped in this film that makes you want to “hold onto something and watch!” (Leonard Maltin’s Classic Movie Guide).
Bonus Content:

• Deleted Scene
• The Original Ending
• Storyboard Sequence
• Tippi Hedren’s Screen Test
• The Birds Is Coming (Universal International Newsreel)
• Suspense Story: National Press Club Hears Hitchcock (Universal International Newsreel)
• Production Photographs
• Production Notes
• Trailer

Aspect Ratio ‏ : ‎ 1.85:1
Is Discontinued By Manufacturer ‏ : ‎ No
MPAA rating ‏ : ‎ PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned)
Product Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 0.7 x 7.5 x 5.4 inches; 0.01 ounces
Item model number ‏ : ‎ 25729684
Director ‏ : ‎ Alfred Hitchcock
Media Format ‏ : ‎ Multiple Formats, Color, NTSC, Widescreen
Run time ‏ : ‎ 2 hours
Release date ‏ : ‎ August 28, 2012
Actors ‏ : ‎ Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, Veronica Cartwright
Producers ‏ : ‎ Alfred Hitchcock
Language ‏ : ‎ English (Dolby Digital 2.0), French (Dolby Digital 2.0)
Studio ‏ : ‎ Universal Pictures Home Entertainment
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0087ZG7PW
Number of discs ‏ : ‎ 1
4.5
Reviewer: J. boyle
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Good quality DVD of a clasic
Review: In 1960, Hitchcock turned a corner from making suspense films into psychological horror with Psycho. Two years later he followed that with “The Birds”, while not really in the horror genre, (no monsters, mad killers, zombies, etc…after all, they’re just birds…we see them every day…) manages to make an everyday object terrifying.As a kid growing up in the ’60s,.those films earner him the reputation of a horror film maker, an impression that wasn’t corrected until I became familiar with his earlier masterpieces.Great set up, he never explains why the birds attack or gives us a clear resolution.To do either would likely put the film into sci-fi or horror genres.Rod Taylor, often underrated, is great as Mitch, a guy dealing with a semi-crazy (al!st) stalker, a domineering mother, a far too young little sister, and a woman suffering from a bad case of unrequited love.In many ways, birds are the least of his problems.The role doesn’t need a Cary Grant, and Taylor was under plays the part, trying to be an everyman. Despite his youth and fitness, he’s no action hero here, instead he’s an average guy in an unknown situation.Well crafted, well shot with great effects, Hitchcock gives us spooky chills when required in an otherwise setting of eerie calm.Hedren does okay, she’s not my favorite Hitchcock blond, it would be interesting to dwell on whay a better or more experienced actress could have done with the role.Nice to add this to my collection.I recently bought “Rear Window” and it seems to have the same DVD application.

Reviewer: John Fowler
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title: IS THERE A NEW BLU-RAY TRANSFER OF THE BIRDS? + Blu-Ray Filmography of Hitchcock
Review: PHOTO 1 = version A: Front Cover (May 6, 2014)PHOTO 2 = version B: Front Cover (July 17, 2016)PHOTO 3 = version A: Back CoverPHOTO 4 = version B: Back CoverPHOTO 5 = version B: Sticker on the front coverUniversal has issued “The Birds” on blu-ray twice, each time with a different cover (it’s also in the 15 disc “Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection”).Two obvious questions:1)) Is the 2016 edition (version B) a new digital transfer?2) Did Universal add any deleted scenes or bonus features that were missing from Version A?Unfortunately, the answers are No and No.The 2014 Blu-Ray transfer was an improvement over the earlier DVD, but it was far from perfect.Most of the blame appears to lie with the original negative.Room for improvement.I was hoping that Universal had found new source material in their archives, and authorized a brand new transfer of “The Birds”.What else would justify re-issuing it with a new cover?Maybe they found a deleted scene in the vault?But I could not find any information on the internet.Very frustrating.I finally gave up and ordered the damn thing.VERDICT: The Blu-Rays are identical.One clue: Universal Blu-Rays produced before 2015 do not have the “Resume Movie” option.When your viewing is interrupted in the middle of a film, you cannot resume watching at the point where you left off, but have to go back to the beginning of the disc.The “new” Blu-ray does not have the “Resume Movie” option.This means it was produced before 2015.So why did Universal go to all the trouble?Two explanations:1) There is a sticker on the cover stating that this is part of Universal’s “COLLECTIBLE POP ART SERIES” (photo five).Groovy.2) The back covers (photos 3 & 4) reveal that the “Digital HD Ultraviolet Copy” is no longer included.BUT the offer expired on May 2, 2016 anyway.IN SUMMATION: If you are not an aging hipster, there is no good reason to upgrade to the new Blu-Ray.Version A: 

Reviewer: johnf
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Relevant Today and as Great as Ever.
Review: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS> I TRIED TO KEEP IT TO A MINIMUM BUT THERE”S NO OTHER WAY TO DISCUSS THE FILM. I have to say that Amazon’s streamed picture is absolutely beautiful in its clarity and color, a demonstration-worthy image. Streaming has come a long way.Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds has over time, become a classic among classics. Along with Psycho it is one of the two films most associated with him. It’s scenes are still remembered. It does not matter if he made some better films, this will be one of his most immortal. Ask someone what Rebecca was about or even North by Northwest or Vertigo. Hitchcock was at the top of his form in the early 60’s Since 1954’s Dial M for Murder he had made a succession of films that were artistically superb and mostly very popular with audiences. He had been smart enough to work relatively independently and not be assigned films by some studio head. Both Psycho and The Birds were closer to horror than anything he had previously done and both broke cinematic norms.The Birds was slightly disappointing in it’s day in terms of box office. Though it made five times its cost and was one of the ten biggest films of 1963 (grossing 11.4 million), it paled in comparison with Psycho, the number two box office film of 1960 that made an astounding 32 million or 40 times its cost. Psycho had been a national sensation in the fall of 1960. It was a major topic of conversation and even kids like myself were aware of it even if our parents wouldn’t let us see it. Everybody kept the secrets of the film, too. It was kind of like a new thrill ride: people dared each other to see it. Psycho violated a major unspoken rule of films by killing off its ostensible heroine mid-film. But it was a satisfactory film for the audience because in the end things were resolved and justice was served.The Birds was something else. It violated cinematic norms in a much greater way than Psycho. It had no psychologist at the end to explain everything to the audience, and most of all The Birds had an open and unresolved ending. So unresolved was it that when the group slowly pulls away in Melanie’s Aston Martin there was no traditional title saying “The End”. This truly disturbed people in a way that Psycho didn’t (some people are still disturbed by it). Technically The Birds belonged to a long chain of sci-fi films where some kind of monster disrupts normal life (Frankenstein and Dracula farther back or any number of atomically mutated, gigantic creatures in the fifties). No matter what, the source of the trouble is found and the menace killed, often only when a sudden hunch or discovery shows a way. The Birds didn’t do this and the word of mouth was that people were confused by it. Thus it didn’t catch on as big with the general public. But over the years its reputation has grown and its scenes have become famous. Who can forget Melanie sitting outside the playground while the schoolchildren sing “Rissedy Rossity” or the birds pecking through the back door after Mitch has boarded up the house?The Birds was quite prophetic in its way. It came out in early 1963, before the Kennedy assassination that forever changed the country. Up to then, since the mid 50’s the country was full of an optimism and a feeling that everything was going to work out beautifully. (This, of course was not true for everyone but it was the general tenor of the times). In Bodega Bay everybody leaves their doors unlocked. But beneath that all kinds of problems were lurking that would eventually break out. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring had just been published. Until then no one had any idea of environmental problems, and that’s just one example. Looking back from today’s vantage point it seems a remarkably prescient film: the birds have, in fact, come home to roost. Within the film reasons were only guesses and unsatisfactory ones at best. In the famous restaurant scene Mrs. Bundy, the ornithologist (and great plot device) suggests, “It’s mankind, rather, who insists upon making it difficult for life on this planet.” while the town drunk quotes Ezekiel and offers a theological explanation as God’s wrath. But neither suggestion sticks and they are abandoned.It’s not that Hitchcock was himself socially prophetic. He had been inspired by a 1961 incident when thousands of seagulls had crashed into homes on the Monterey Coast; in that case because they had eaten small fish tainted by poisonous plankton. He remembered that he had already bought the rights to du Maurier’s short story with the intention of using it for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.Everything works in this film, even the things that some people criticize. The actors, thrown into a typical Hitchcock stew of psychological issues, are all perfect in their roles. Rod Taylor’s Mitch is supposed to be emotionally distant. Tippi Hedren was supposed to be somewhat aloof and buttoned down. She did not have much of a career due to her problems with Hitchcock, but she owns this role forever. Jessica Tandy seems a bit old to have an eleven year old daughter in Cathy (Veronica Cartwright), but the ages do work out. Suzanne Pleshette is great as Annie Hayworth, Mitch’s old fling and current town schoolteacher. Even the small roles handled by character actors are memorable. The special effects are a little apparent at times, especially during the bird attacks but they were state of the art in their day and still mostly hold up. In a film this good you don’t question things like that. The schoolhouse is actually miles inland from Bodega Bay but you’d never guess that from the film. That final shot where they pull out of the driveway? That’s a composite of 32 separately filmed parts. And the lack of music is brilliant. It’s the first thing you notice as the film begins, that something is odd about this opening, even if you don’t quite figure out what it is. Later on the silences are deafening.

Reviewer: Gary Smith
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Quality of video
Review: This movie was the same quality as when I saw it in the movie theater

Reviewer: Sweetie
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Gift for our niece.
Review: Our niece loved it!

Reviewer: Wesley
Rating: 4.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Good movie
Review: Entertaining

Reviewer: ferro
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: forse il primo film che ha inaugurato il filone poi reso famoso da lo squalo degli animali assassini. poco da dire, capolavoro assoluto

Reviewer: Monster High Nerd
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: Heute immer noch ein Klassiker, die HD Optik macht einen guten, soliden Eindruck. Macht auch Heut zu Tage noch Spaß zum angucken!Zum Film selber muss man, glaube Ich, nicht viel sagen.

Reviewer: Nino Scholl
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: Einfach ein Klassiker, den man gesehen haben muss! Vor allem für jene, die mal bei der Hollywoodtour im Phantasialand waren 😛

Reviewer: Mr B
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: I became fascinated with this movie after visiting Bodega Bay (where it was filmed) on a US Road Trip. The first thing I’d say is don’t panic if you find the film confusing and/or frustrating, that is exactly Hitchcock’s intention, and part of the film’s genius.The immediate thing to get straight is that the film format is that of “allegory”. In simple terms, the film is conveying a hidden meaning which is actually a parallel storyline going on at the same time as the events in the actual story you are seeing on screen. Working out this hidden meaning is the key to unlocking the message (and arguably power) of the film. There are many alternative interpretations, some of which are very political, so I can’t claim my interpretation is the right one, but in my opinion it makes the most sense, so here goes…The film is about sexual morality and the changing social attitudes of women in 1960’s America. There are at some early clues which I think lead you down this road:• The film was made in 1963, right in the middle of this cultural revolution,• It starts off in San Francisco, probably the most left-leaning city in the US, so in the vanguard of the social changes going on at the time,• Very early we see that Melanie is a very confident young woman, not scared to take control of a situation and do the chasing to get her man, culminating in her rowing the boat across the bay herself, refusing the help of the boatman, and later on we find out she was cavorting naked in a fountain in Rome (all of which is contrary to the previous social norm for a woman),• When she arrives in Bodega Bay we can see an immediate culture clash, as the small-town conservative culture where the townspeople freely give out personal information (as everyone knows and trusts each other, and they don’t get many outsiders) looks odd to anyone from a big city (or indeed a modern audience),• Hitchcock had a bit of a thing about female sexuality and (usually male) sexual obsession, in particular the “Perfect Blonde” (most clearly seen in Vertigo), so it’s the “go to” theme for many of his works.Also I don’t think it’s an accident that the Birds Melanie brings are “Lovebirds”, which I guess you could interpret as “Sexbirds”. These Birds are colourful, even gaudy, manicured, cosseted, and out of place, very similar to Melanie, in fact they are almost a bit of an avatar for Melanie. Just as the townspeople react suspiciously to a disruptive outsider like Melanie (in particular Mitch’s mother) the “natural” Birds of Bodega Bay get stirred into a state of panic and antagonism towards the Lovebirds, being the social intruders in their domain of the natural world. Their main point of attack is usually Melanie, although in their frenzy they also attack other people. There’s also a very heavy clue in the Diner, when the woman points accusingly at Melanie stating it’s her who is the source of the problem, which although rather tragic is actually correct, because the Birds weren’t attacking until she showed up with her cage of jarring interlopers. Just as she’s a threat to the small-town conservatism which prevails in Bodega Bay, the Lovebirds are a threat to the natural indigenous Birds which inhabit the town and blend in perfectly with the daily routine, established over many years of evolution. Unlike the pet birds, manipulated by breeders to look a certain way and be sold for money, and in this case being a gift to trigger a sexual encounter.On some of the other key plot points and references:• Why does Melanie open the door to a room full of Birds when it’s very likely to be dangerous for her? I think this is a reference to the power of sexual temptation over rational thought (mostly a male character flaw, but in the 60’s this was arguably transitioning to be a female issue as well),• Why do the Birds not attack at the end? First of all, they see that Melanie is leaving, along with the offending Lovebirds, so it’s basically mission accomplished, battle won, the end. I think it’s also significant that they don’t attack Mitch when he goes out to fetch the car, as they see the man playing the natural protective role, also the women in the group are by this point playing the natural female family role of nurturing, including Mitch’s mother with Melanie, so it’s essentially back to the standard gender roles of the 1950’s, and the “natural order” is restored,• Note the line right at the end from the young girl, asking to take the Lovebirds because “they haven’t harmed anyone,” which I think is Hitchcock being extremely ironic,• Annie (the teacher) was another key target, being another young woman from out of town with a different perspective, and who was previously in a relationship with Mitch,• The attacks on the kids could be the Birds trying to stop the next generation getting “corrupted)” by the new sexual morals via the influence of their teacher Annie (noting that Schools are a battleground of today’s culture wars).You could also view the film as being about immigration, or mankind’s disruption of nature, the latter narrative being supported by the old woman in the diner who appears to be an expert on bird species. But personally I don’t think these interpretations are as coherent as the one I’ve set out above. Whatever you think, it’s a very unique movie, and would probably never be made for today’s CGI-obsessed audiences who it seems need everything delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Reviewer: MM
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: Livraison ultra rapide, article parfait, c’est la version attendue !