It has an incredibly stupid storyline but manages to get past that somehow and make an excellent movie. Some parts are laughable to the modern audience but that's part of what makes this movie so entertaining

So intense and once again full of suspense as the master always did. Hitchcock hooked me right until the very end of it and all of that mystery was killing me! Birds never looked so scary and macabre and I guess I'll never look at a seagull the same way!
Hitchcock explored once again a possessive relationship between mother and son that reminded me of Psycho. It's also interesting to see how the characters develop their relatioships with each other and how their bonds grow throughout the film.
I believe some might have different interpretations of the end, other might feel kind of frustated because it's not very conclusive and I really don't know how to explain myself in the right way without spoiling anything. For sure it's full of metaphors and you need to see and interpretate the film behind from what you are seeing.
It's a very frightening and great film! Until now Hitchcock never disappointed me.

A terrifying work of beauty.

This is one of those movies that makes you want to get straight to the point. The character building doesn't work (the whole thing about Rome, the long scene with the teacher...).
I just watched the new 4k bluray and the special effects still look great (with the exception of the school attack).
The ending is great unless you want your movies to wrap everything up in a neat little bow.

Given it's age, it's quite an enjoyable movie but take in account that this is one of my first "scary" movie ever seen so I might be a little bias.

I love how in the house you can't hear any of the cast, the defying mass of the birds drowning out even the gasps of breath. One of my favorite movies to just turn on when it is on.

I love this movie!! I actually rewatched it and kept loving it :sparkles:
- the beginning of this movie is just everything to me: the dialogue between Melanie and Mitch, the chemistry between them, I really love it! I even love Tippi Harden's performance here :sparkles:
- What holds me most in this film is how the story unfolds, Melanie's arrival at Bodega Bay, ALL her lines… I like it a lot
- About the end of the film: I think it's fair, it gives that feeling that something is missing, but I like the simple explanation of revolution among the birds, after all, many scenes in the film lead to this
- a movie that aged VERY well for me

Alfred Hitchcock's Survival Horror Experience

I've tried this multiple times now and I just don't get all the praise and high scores. At its best, this movie fair puts me to sleep. At its worst, it's damn unwatchable. I don't know what it is - maybe it's just aged badly, although I've never had that as an issue with any other movie. But if not that, then... I'm really stumped. It's just a struggle from start to end.

Good suspense and visuals for when it was produced

Characters 6
Story 7
Pacing 7
Visuals 7.5
Rewatchability Factor 5
Enjoyment or Emotional Value 7
Average Score 6.58

Peacock's fifth film of the curated by Jamie Lee Curtis/history of slashers collection (Psycho being the fourth) and I don't know why the score is so low on this, critics put this slightly below Psycho and I agree with them, the impact is lower but the scares are just as if not more so than Psycho. Tippi is so beautiful and wonderful in this role. This is almost 2 hours which I believe is longer than average for a 60s movie.

This was one of the first animal horror movies, 10 years before jaws, and helped to create the archetype of animal horror as we know it today. It's slow the first hour but as far as the top rated movies go I'm surprised y'all don't like it more.

my kind of movie 63 peacock national bird of india 63 or 64 late moms marriage so added interest.

With its reputation I expected another strong Hitchcock movie but I was disappointed. The scenes with the birds hole up well. The first half was fruitless.

Compared to other Hitchcock's films.. this one is much poorer and weaker!

Hitchcock in his prime here. It's amazing how violent this was for its time. Old people children and beautiful blondes all fall victim to savage attacks by crazed flocks of birds. It's still pretty shocking to see today. Birds fly down chimneys smash through windows and peck through doors to get to their human prey.
There are birds all over the place. I seriously have to do some reading to figure out how Hitchcock did it. I found there were several great shots like the birds' eye view of the gas station explosion and the silent attack on Melanie in the attic.
Rod Taylor and Tippi Hendren are easy to pull for and the open ending is great. Will people continue to be attacked methodically by flocks of killer birds? Do the birds bring aboout the apocalypse or will society be forever altered due to the need to hide from billions of birds?

The scenery, the fashion, hair styles, make-up, the interior design is awesome. Tippi Hedren (aka Betty Draper) is wonderful. I guess I just fell for the look and feel of that *Mad Men* era. It's sad they had to do some shots in the studio (like the driving and dunes scene) - but I guess that were the technical limitations of the era. But that doesn't hold the movie back. Dialogues in the first part are awesome.

I have to admit that I have always avoided to watch this movie (just like Psycho) cause I suspected it's a horror movie. I can't stand horror movies. Thus I was pleasantly surprised about the romantic comedy feel of the first part. I really hate the birds/horror half. It's just awful. I don't like the bird FX (it was probably revolutionary back then) I even don't understand the whole bird story if I'm completely honest. It's terrifying alright but that's exactly what I hate about horror movies ... Sure the birds scenes produced some of the most iconic movie scenes ever but that won't change my verdict on the last part.

I can't remember how many times I have watched this film. Well over 20 times. When I was doing photo shoots, I would always watch it again beforehand to force me into thinking hard about framing my pictures right.
This time, I just put the film on without inviting my daughter to watch it. She went past once, then twice and ended up sitting with me to watch it because she was so taken by the story.
If a 13-year-old kid can still be drawn into a 1960's narrative and its lousy special effects, I think this gives you an idea of the effectiveness of the movie.