Well, the conflict at least seems underdeveloped, compared to the other aspects of this narrative, whose build-up segment runs for way, way too long, until it begins to feel aimless, just as the relatively tighter body gets to be draggy itself. The film is plenty well-developed, with its characters, and its settings, and even its themes, but not with, of all things, it's conflict, for although I can understand the ambiguity behind the birds' mania, and although they attempt explanations way late into the body of the film, it's hard to get all that invested in a conflict so underdeveloped. I joke, but this was Alfred Hitchcock's last huge hit, insinuating that he had time to make huge hits prior, and that would be great if this film was by any means 'soaring' (Ha-ha-ha-caw!), being an unreasonably two hours reasonably well-spent, but not especially smoothly.

Well, I can understand why no one wanted to try and evoke thoughts of a film this big by naming his or her film 'The Birds', and even why no one made a film before this one that was titled 'The Birds', because this film actually came out a couple months before 'Surfin' Bird', and it doesn't get any older than that. I can torture you all with this nonsense all night, but in all seriousness, there are so many trite things involving birds that I can't believe this seemingly uncreative title wasn't taken, like, a couple hundred times before and after this film.

Seriously, I've heard of California going to the birds, but this is ridiculous. 'A-well-a, everybody's heard about the bird, b-b-b-bird, bird, bird, bird is the word!' Man, these birds are bad enough, so one can only imagine what chaos would befall society if the bees got in on this killing spree, John Burroughs.

The birds daphne