Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Ver Hitchcock/Truffaut

Hitchcock/Truffaut is a movie starring Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovich, and David Fincher. Filmmakers discuss how Francois Truffaut's 1966 book "Cinema According to Hitchcock" influenced their work.

Kent Jones
Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovich, David Fincher, Bob Balaban

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Kent Jones
Writer Kent Jones, Serge Toubiana
Stars Wes Anderson, Peter Bogdanovich, David Fincher, Bob Balaban
Country France, USA
Also Known As Hitchcock og Truffaut, Χίτσκοκ/Τριφό, ヒッチコック/トリュフォー
Runtime 1 h 19 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description In 1962, François Truffaut, a former film critic with the influential Cahiers du Cinéma and current respected filmmaker with three movies under his belt (many writers from Cahiers du Cinéma who went on to become filmmakers in the French New Wave) made a cold request to fellow filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, who had close to four decades of directing experience and forty feature films in his filmography, to a series of interviews to discuss his movies in detail. The choice of Hitchcock may have seemed odd on the surface due to their differing styles and the fact that Hitchcock's films were seen as popular fluff compared to Truffaut's more critically acclaimed works, but Truffaut did admire Hitchcock's as a director. The interviews, to which Hitchcock did agree, were documented in a couple of ways, ultimately with Truffaut's 1966 book "Hitchcock Truffaut" in which not only Hitchcock's filmmaking process in general is discussed, but also an in depth candid discussion of each of Hitchcock's films to date is covered. Those interviews and the book are the basis for this documentary. Other directors are interviewed, they who also discuss in further detail those issues covered in the book, and in turn talk about the influence of both Hitchcock and Truffaut on their own work.

Top reviews

Sunday, 17 May 2020 18:40

It was not a huge surprise to find Hitchcock behind the camera. In fact, he's been a screenwriter since the 1930s and he's done some of his best work in Hollywood, from "Vertigo" (1948) to "Rear Window" (1956). But this movie seems to be about his way of creating tension. Hitchcock is fascinated by the time in which movies were made, and he had a reputation for making movies that might not be "great" but were full of suspense and imagination. "Rear Window" is one of his best-known movies. He's got a reputation for not going with the crowd, and he wanted to make a movie in which he'd have complete creative control. It works for this movie. And it works for "The Birds." He went with a more mainstream studio, and it's not as if they wanted to do anything he wouldn't do, and I think they managed to do a good job. There are a few scenes that were a little strange, but Hitchcock does a good job making them work. It's not a perfect movie, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's probably one of the most realistic movie about filmmaking I've seen. I think the main problem is that Hitchcock didn't write the script. He had nothing to do with the movie and wasn't involved in any way. And I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it gives him a certain sort of control that no other director would have. The movie does have its flaws. The first half-hour or so of the movie is a little slow, and when you realize that Hitchcock had nothing to do with the story and it's all about the birds and the movie, it's just a little too slow. It's good, though, and it's worth a look. It's also good to see that Hitchcock didn't have to work with a director who had more control and was more comfortable with his work. And it's good to see that Hitchcock's way of doing things is still alive and well in today's movies. Overall, I really liked this movie, and I would recommend it to anyone.
Saturday, 09 May 2020 16:18

The director, Joris Visser, has done a good job of showing a specific style of French cinema, which is more highly stylized than the original French or American cinema. The subjects of Hitchcock and Truffaut are frequently referred to, and their films are shown (some of them with subtitles) as a whole. Both directors were considered to be highly influential, especially in the 1960s. But Truffaut is so much more than an illustrator of B film techniques. He has developed a wonderful style for telling a story. It is not something new, but it has great potential. I have noticed that some people don't seem to understand this. They don't realize that this film is an example of Truffaut's high-energy, very busy style. It is not the most stylish film ever made, but it is very exciting and fun. And there are a few moments when it is so fast and fast that you have to stop the film. It is very much like Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", where the film is fast and moving at a very high speed. It is a very fast paced film, with lots of action and great camera-work. This is the first film in which Truffaut uses film on a much higher level than he used to use it in the 1960s. It is very interesting how Truffaut uses the whole film to tell a story. Some people complain that the film does not have a plot. I think that is an unfortunate mistake, because a good story, even a complicated story, is essential for any great film. Truffaut makes good use of the whole film, but the story is not the greatest part of the film. The best films are about the relationship between the characters, which is sometimes very simple. But I think that the greatest strength of the film is the atmosphere. The films have a great deal of atmosphere, and this atmosphere is the major strength of the film. It is not just a movie with a story, but a great movie with great atmosphere.
Thursday, 16 Apr 2020 03:02

How much is going on in the lives of a bunch of people who love music? That's the question Hitchcock asks in this documentary. They are part of a loose collection of artists (that are not musicians) who see the world through the eyes of an artist and the music they love. It's a fascinating look at the lives of these artists. All of them seem to be very introspective and it's interesting to see what they are saying about the world, their current work, their past work, the reasons they are artists. Many of the artists are actually old friends of Hitchcock. I have the feeling that Hitchcock is making an assessment of them as well. The documentary really makes one think of Hitchcock's obsession with art and the possibilities of art. The artist in this documentary is in the business of making films and is as obsessed with film as Hitchcock was. He is talking about his films as if they were the most important thing in his life. It's hard to watch this documentary. It is just so full of beautiful music and images. I am not a music fan but the documentary has a way of making music seem like art. There are many great interviews with the artists and the director of the documentary, Ralf Dehmel. I think that the documentary has some strong messages about how we view art. It is not only about a artist's work. The film also gives an idea of how music can be seen as an expression of life. If you are an artist or have a passion for music, you should definitely check this out.
Saturday, 28 Mar 2020 03:01

This film is a masterclass in non-fiction filmmaking. It was originally intended as a documentary about one man and one man's film. It became the basis of an entire documentary and then, in 1994, it was broadcast as a 40-minute mini-series on PBS. This film has the distinction of being the first film to have the word "documentary" in the title. It was chosen because it was the first film to be nominated for an Academy Award, and that was only for "A Passage to India." This was in 1974. It's no surprise to me that PBS was unable to make a second appearance of the film until 2001. It was so highly acclaimed, that when they announced the award, the first words out of the director's mouth was "I am the one who won the award." The credits are an excellent example of how to tell a story. The credits are split into "the director" and "the story." The story starts in 1945, when young Neeson plays a radio personality in a South African bar. He is encouraged to visit a friend in Namibia and, in return, tells his life story and experiences. He also uses his radio show to visit his other friend in Namibia. We have the entire story in one take. The story of Neeson's life was compelling, but the documentary was more interesting. The story was told in a way that didn't make the story seem forced and unreal. Instead, it was told simply and with a great deal of dignity. The characters in the story were the real ones. We got to know these men and could really get a glimpse into the way they lived. In the documentary, we only got to know them, but we still got to know them as people. The interviews were all done at different times. For example, the man who was a doctor at the Namibia hospital, his wife, his brother and his brother's wife. We got to know them and they became real people. The most memorable part of the documentary was the interview with Joseph McCarthy. In the documentary, we hear his message about all the people in America who were "conservatives" and had all the rights of citizens. This is the part of the story that left me speechless. I can only imagine how many people in America were watching the movie in the early days of the McCarthy era. McCarthy spoke as if he was a king, and he took over the radio stations and did the things he did because he said he was doing it to protect Americans. The film shows a lot of how this man lived and thought and talked about the things he did. He had the right to do that because he was a member of the ruling class. He was a good person and wanted to make sure people knew he was a good person. I think this is the reason why most people didn't like the movie. They thought the film was biased. But it's not. This is a true story. This man lived and worked and lived and worked. This man was a patriot. I think that's the important thing to remember. Not everything that happens in our lives is an American event. A lot of the things that happened to the people in this story are the same things that
Saturday, 28 Mar 2020 02:21

I was very much taken by this movie, with the whole "Lemony Snicket" thing. I'm not much of a fan of the "Scary Movie" films, but this one had some really funny moments, and the concept of the movie was very original and I would definitely recommend it to any fan of the horror genre. It is not necessarily a really original idea, but it was done very well. It was very different from anything I have ever seen before, which I think is good. There were some very funny scenes, and there were some scenes that could make you laugh, but the laughs didn't seem to have a point. The movie was entertaining, but it didn't make me laugh every single second of it. The characters were not very appealing, and they did not have that much emotion. This is a movie that is to be watched in a theater, not at home on a TV screen. It's very important to make sure that you are not bored during the movie, because there is a lot of talking and no speaking. It is not always a good thing to have a lot of talking. In order to truly enjoy the movie, you must watch it with a large group of friends, and you must not be bored. There is some good acting, and it is a good plot. I thought the idea of the movie was interesting, but I would have liked a bit more substance to it. The concept is good, but I still think that the concept needs to be expanded upon a little more, and I would like to see a movie with more substance, but then again, I'm not a fan of movies with a lot of talking. The movie is interesting, and the concept is good, but there is still a lot to be desired.
Friday, 27 Mar 2020 23:23

This is an interesting movie, but not for the reasons you might expect. When I was in the US army, a number of guys told me that the Vietnam War was all about them. Now, I think it was mostly about the war itself. In any case, the movie is fascinating. For instance, you get to see the first taste of the stinking smell of napalm on the bloodied soldiers. You get to hear the blood-splattered soldiers recount the battles they had just survived. You get to see how in war, most of the soldiers become the enemy and have to live with their wounds and their deaths. You get to see how they struggle to regain their humanity. One soldier tells a friend of a comrade who had died in Vietnam, "You see the picture of him in my head when I look at my dead friend. I hate him." And what about the great scenes where you see the soldiers, who are in the mud, struggling to stay alive? These are just some of the things you get to see. But of course, you cannot watch this movie and not realize how overrated it is. The movie is entertaining, but it is also deeply disturbing. You get to see a lot of film, but you also get to see a lot of soldiers who are psychologically damaged and cannot speak for themselves. There is no mistaking that the movie is trying to portray the reality of the war. But then you get to see scenes that make you question the accuracy of the movie. For instance, in one scene, you see a soldier, who is about to be killed, sitting in a classroom. He is playing with his cats. One of the cats is crying. He turns around to look at the crying cat. "It's my f*ing cat!" he says, looking at his dog's head. It is a bit over the top, but still, it is supposed to be a little over the top. But you see, you do not know who the soldiers are, or what they are fighting for. They are just men with their own fears and problems. The movie is a bit like a lecture on Vietnam. It shows what happened and what we can expect from it. I do not think that the movie is meant to be taken as factual. It does not show the true horrors of war. It does not show how the men fought, but what happens to them, and what they learn from it. It is really about the war itself. The movie is not meant to be taken seriously. And if you like war movies, you may not like this one, although I do not think it is as bad as some others I have seen. In any case, the movie is worth seeing, and that is all that I can say.

Write a review