Editing Rear Window (section)

==Reception==
[[File:Encina Drive-in Ad - 13 October 1954, Santa Cruz, CA.jpg|140px|thumb|[[Drive-in theater|Drive-in]] advertisement from 1954]]
[[Bosley Crowther]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' called the film a "tense and exciting exercise" and deemed Hitchcock as a director whose work has a "maximum of build-up to the punch, a maximum of carefully tricked deception and incidents to divert and amuse." Crowther also noted that "Mr. Hitchcock's film is not 'significant.' What it has to say about people and human nature is superficial and glib, but it does expose many facets of the loneliness of city life, and it tacitly demonstrates the impulse of morbid curiosity. The purpose of it is sensation, and that it generally provides in the colorfulness of its detail and in the flood of menace toward the end."<ref name="nytimes" /> ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' called the film "one of Alfred Hitchcock's better thrillers" which "combines technical and artistic skills in a manner that makes this an unusually good piece of murder mystery entertainment."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://archive.org/details/variety195-1954-07/page/n71/mode/2up|title=Film Reviews: Rear Window|page=6|work=Variety|date=July 14, 1954|access-date=September 13, 2020|via=Internet Archive}}</ref> The film ranked fifth on ''[[Cahiers du Cinéma]]'''s [[Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists|Top 10 Films of the Year List]] in 1955.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/cahiers.html|title=Cahiers du Cinema: Top Ten Lists 1951-2009|last=Johnson|first=Eric C.|website=alumnus.caltech.edu|language=en-US|access-date=2017-12-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120327102838/http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/cahiers.html|archive-date=2012-03-27|url-status=dead}}</ref>

''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' called it "just possibly the second-most entertaining picture (after ''[[The 39 Steps (1935 film)|The 39 Steps]]'') ever made by Alfred Hitchcock" and a film in which there is "never an instant&nbsp;... when Director Hitchcock is not in minute and masterly control of his material." The reviewer also noted the "occasional studied lapses of taste and, more important, the eerie sense a Hitchcock audience has of reacting in a manner so carefully foreseen as to seem practically foreordained."<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,891018,00.html|title=Cinema: The New Pictures|date=August 2, 1954|magazine=Time|volume=64|number=5|url-access=subscription|access-date=September 13, 2020}}</ref> ''[[Harrison's Reports]]'' named the film as a "first-rate thriller" that is "strictly an adult entertainment, but it should prove to be a popular one." They further added, "What helps to make the story highly entertaining is the fact that it is enhanced by clever dialogue and by delightful touches of comedy and romance that relieve the tension."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://archive.org/details/harrisonsreports00harr_2/page/n133/mode/2up|title='Rear Window' with James Stewart, Grace Kelly, and Thelma Ritter|work=Harrison's Reports|date=July 15, 1954|page=115|access-date=September 13, 2020}}</ref>

Nearly 30 years after the film's initial release, [[Roger Ebert]] reviewed the re-release by [[Universal Pictures]] in October 1983, after Hitchcock's estate was settled. He said the film "develops such a clean, uncluttered line from beginning to end that we're drawn through it (and into it) effortlessly. The experience is not so much like watching a movie, as like&nbsp;... well, like spying on your neighbors. Hitchcock traps us right from the first&nbsp;... And because Hitchcock makes us accomplices in Stewart's [[voyeurism]], we're along for the ride. When an enraged man comes bursting through the door to kill Stewart, we can't detach ourselves, because we looked too, and so we share the guilt and in a way we deserve what's coming to him."<ref>{{cite news|last=Ebert|first=Roger|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/rear-window-1954|title=Rear Window (1954)|work=Chicago Sun-Times|date=October 7, 1983|access-date=September 13, 2020|via=RogerEbert.com}}</ref> In 1983, reviewing the film [[Vincent Canby]] wrote "Its appeal, which goes beyond that of other, equally masterly Hitchcock works, remains undiminished."<ref>{{cite web|title='Rear Window' - Still a joy|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/film/100983hitch-window-reflect.html|website=New York Times|date=9 October 1983}}</ref>

The [[review aggregator]] website [[Rotten Tomatoes]] reports an approval rating of 98% based on 130 reviews, with an average rating of 9.30/10. The critics' consensus states that "Hitchcock exerted full potential of suspense in this masterpiece."<ref name="RT" /> At [[Metacritic]], the film has a weighted average score of a very rare perfect 100 out of 100 based on 18 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.metacritic.com/movie/rear-window |title=Rear Window Reviews |website=[[Metacritic]] |publisher=[[CBS Interactive]] |access-date=June 10, 2019}}</ref> In his 2012 review of the film, Killian Fox of ''[[The Guardian]]'' wrote: "Hitchcock made a career out of indulging our voyeuristic tendencies, and he never excited them more skilfully, or with more gleeful self-awareness, than in ''Rear Window''".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Fox|first1=Killian|title=My favourite Hitchcock: Rear Window|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2012/jul/25/my-favourite-hitchcock-rear-window|website=The Guardian|date=25 July 2012}}</ref>