From pinoydvd: "There's a very interesting article that's critical of Hitchcock: it shows that almost all of the endings or motives in his movies are hackneyed or contrived. I think it was featured in Salon."
I've heard that charge before. To which I usually reply that 1) Hitchcock has a surface plausibility (a textural and visual seductiveness) that usually takes care of questions while you're viewing the film; 2) that Hitchcock himself never put much store in motives or plots--the key ingredient that motivates most Hitchcock movies is called "the McGuffin"--implying that it's just a gimmick, whether uranium, top secret files, or whatever, and that it's usually interchangeable, a mere excuse to move the plot; 3) You usually go to a Hitchcock film for the emotional and psychological complexity, mainly of Hitchcock's own obsessions, not for plausibility.
But as usual, Hitchock himself has the best replies to such criticism.
1) When someone points out a plot loophole, he usually calls it "The Refrigerator Question." Meaning you go home after having a good time, you get ready for bed, you go to the kitchen to open the fridge for a late-night snack, then you pause and say: "Wait a minute..."
2) When Ingrid Bergman once argued with him on a specific point, Hitchock told her: "Ingrid--it's only a movie..."