Alfred-Hitchcock Movie Reviews

This movie is better than the other versions and even though it is a Hitchcock I still don't like it that much. This was Hitch's first talkie, but not a good start. I don't think it was super but it beats the other two versions by a long shot! Watch it and see what you think!

A young woman woman flirts with a man much to the dismay of her fiance, who leaves in anger. She and her new handsome artist friend go to his studio where he persuades the young lady to pose for him - a'la naturel; tragedy ensues. A surprisingly taut and suspenceful film, although the sound techniques are primitive and scratchy. This is an early Hitchcockian example of what was to become the director's specialty: the leading player is a victim, caught in circumstances beyond his control. Hitchcock disliked Ondra's reedy voice, and it was dubbed by an actress named Joan Barry: it was a painstakingly difficult feat considering the primitive techniques of early sound films: it took many takes before the speech was in sync.

This movie was one of the first Hitchcock movies I ever saw, and it made me want to see more. It was the first "talkie" filmed in Britain, and the lead actress, Anny Ondra, had to be dubbed due to her thick accent.
Ondra stands out to me, she is a delight as the blackmailed young lady. It is a pity that she was not used again by Hitchcock.

This movie is better than the other versions and even though it is a Hitchcock I still don't like it that much. This was Hitch's first talkie, but not a good start. I don't think it was super but it beats the other two versions by a long shot! Watch it and see what you think!

A young woman woman flirts with a man much to the dismay of her fiance, who leaves in anger. She and her new handsome artist friend go to his studio where he persuades the young lady to pose for him - a'la naturel; tragedy ensues. A surprisingly taut and suspenceful film, although the sound techniques are primitive and scratchy. This is an early Hitchcockian example of what was to become the director's specialty: the leading player is a victim, caught in circumstances beyond his control. Hitchcock disliked Ondra's reedy voice, and it was dubbed by an actress named Joan Barry: it was a painstakingly difficult feat considering the primitive techniques of early sound films: it took many takes before the speech was in sync.

This movie was one of the first Hitchcock movies I ever saw, and it made me want to see more. It was the first "talkie" filmed in Britain, and the lead actress, Anny Ondra, had to be dubbed due to her thick accent.
Ondra stands out to me, she is a delight as the blackmailed young lady. It is a pity that she was not used again by Hitchcock.

This movie is better than the other versions and even though it is a Hitchcock I still don't like it that much. This was Hitch's first talkie, but not a good start. I don't think it was super but it beats the other two versions by a long shot! Watch it and see what you think!

A young woman woman flirts with a man much to the dismay of her fiance, who leaves in anger. She and her new handsome artist friend go to his studio where he persuades the young lady to pose for him - a'la naturel; tragedy ensues. A surprisingly taut and suspenceful film, although the sound techniques are primitive and scratchy. This is an early Hitchcockian example of what was to become the director's specialty: the leading player is a victim, caught in circumstances beyond his control. Hitchcock disliked Ondra's reedy voice, and it was dubbed by an actress named Joan Barry: it was a painstakingly difficult feat considering the primitive techniques of early sound films: it took many takes before the speech was in sync.

This movie was one of the first Hitchcock movies I ever saw, and it made me want to see more. It was the first "talkie" filmed in Britain, and the lead actress, Anny Ondra, had to be dubbed due to her thick accent.
Ondra stands out to me, she is a delight as the blackmailed young lady. It is a pity that she was not used again by Hitchcock.

This movie is better than the other versions and even though it is a Hitchcock I still don't like it that much. This was Hitch's first talkie, but not a good start. I don't think it was super but it beats the other two versions by a long shot! Watch it and see what you think!

A young woman woman flirts with a man much to the dismay of her fiance, who leaves in anger. She and her new handsome artist friend go to his studio where he persuades the young lady to pose for him - a'la naturel; tragedy ensues. A surprisingly taut and suspenceful film, although the sound techniques are primitive and scratchy. This is an early Hitchcockian example of what was to become the director's specialty: the leading player is a victim, caught in circumstances beyond his control. Hitchcock disliked Ondra's reedy voice, and it was dubbed by an actress named Joan Barry: it was a painstakingly difficult feat considering the primitive techniques of early sound films: it took many takes before the speech was in sync.

This movie was one of the first Hitchcock movies I ever saw, and it made me want to see more. It was the first "talkie" filmed in Britain, and the lead actress, Anny Ondra, had to be dubbed due to her thick accent.
Ondra stands out to me, she is a delight as the blackmailed young lady. It is a pity that she was not used again by Hitchcock.

A period piece directed by Hitchcock? Yes, it is a surprise. It wasn't the first though (the dreadful Jamaica Inn was Hitch's first period piece) It must have surprised Hitch as well. While produced by his own company (Transatlantic Pictures), Under Capricorn would seem a natural choice for David O Selznick as producer but all wrong for Hitchcock as director.

Yes, the material might seem appropriate for Hitch given the themes explored but this romantic melodrama was really quite a stretch for him as a director. The experience here certainly made his later works richer (such as Vertigo) but, on the whole, Under Capricorn was clearly a learning experience for Hitch.

The performances are grand and as florid as one might expect given the material. The screenplay by James Bridie (with considerable rewriting by Hume Cronyn)leaves Hitch in a lifeboat without oars; Hitch pretty much goes nowhere over the course of the film's 116 minutes. Unfortunately, this expensive miscalculation would do in Hitch's Transatlantic films (Rope was the first Transatlantic production and, despite some obvious flaws, is a much better film).

The former reviewer is right, of course: UNDER CAPRICORN was not produced by Selznick, as I wrote in my first comment, but by Hitchcock himself. I was led to this error because the sight of Margaret Leighton and Joseph Cotten in those costumes and on those sets reminded me so mucn of GONE WITH THE WIND and DUEL IN THE SUN.

The film is watchable, no question. There is no such thing as an "unwatchable" Hitchcock film. The cinematography (By Jack Cardiff, who also made THE RED SHOES and BLACK NARCISSUS) is attractive and Ingrid Bergman is very moving, especially in the scene where she pulls herself together and makes an attempt to run the household. The kitchen-maids, used to Leighton's strict rule, disobey, and Bergman realizes that she has no authority in her own house. Leighton strides to Bergman's bedroom and systematically exposes her and her bottles in front of her guests. But this is probably the only good scene in the entire film.

The fact that Hitchcock produced it himself, explains much of the film's shortcomings: He wanted to play it safe, because his own money was at stake. UNDER CAPRICORN must have looked terrific on paper, but his caution during shooting robbed the story of everything that must have attracted him in the first place. And he fails with one of the most potent subjects: mesalliance. A society lady marries her stable-boy, suffers under the loss of her social position and drowns her sorrows in the bottle. An interesting premise, but Hitchcock fails completely to elucidate their complex relationship. Hasn't Cotten every reason to be depressed since his wife considers him so obviously as her punishment? And what would have happened after all those years of his (not so selfless) self-sacrifice, if Bergman had refused to meet her part of the deal? Hitchcock answers no questions, and his gingerly approach paralyses the film to such a degree that the potentially most interesting scenes are not even shown: Bergman and Cotten were too grown up to play teenagers, and Hitchcock was unwilling to curtail their precious screen-presence for a flashback with younger actors. So they simply tell their story to the patiently listening Michael Wilding, and instead of psychology, the director resorts to a gunshot to bring the film to a conclusion. And that's it, plotwise.

UNDER CAPRICORN could have had the drama of WUTHERING HEIGHTS or the comedy of THE PRINCESS AND THE SWINEHERD. Hitchcock prevents the story from gliding into parody, but his direcion is heavy-handed and maladroit. The film lacks dynamism: Other stars in Hitchcock films, like James Stewart or Anthony Perkins were not exactly hyperactive, either, but the director explored the dark obsessions beneath their apparent phlegm. In Bergman and Cotten he had top actors, but he was too afraid to rely on their talent, and pushed them around like pawns instead. UNDER CAPRICORN may look like a masterpiece when compared with all those "Hitchcockian" thrillers made by the master's clones. But the director of VERTIGO & Co deserves to be measured by the standart he set with his best films, and in this context UNDER CAPRICORN is not worth more than a 3/5.

...First of all this is NOT a Selznic picture. Hitchcock was free from his contract with selznic after "The Paradine Case." Hitchcock produced this under his own Transatlantic Productions.
Selznic didn't have the remotest thing to do with this movie! No this isn't as good as most Hitchcock movies but it is entertaining.

Another one of Hitchcock's early British films. Made just one year after Hitchcock's classic 'The 39 Steps'. Hitchcock's trademarks and usual suspense are greatly tampered making a more comic (?) film with some tense sexual undercurrents. John Gielgud, who is a master in stage acting and one of the most respected performers since Olivier stars as the secret agent who is sent to knock off an assassin. There are some surprising homosexual undercurrents to his character, he has the opportunity with Madeline Carroll but never does anything about it. Peter Lorre is also memorable as the Spanish (?) assassin, a bit too over the top at times but still delivers. The accents are extremely thick and lots of close-ups of letters and messages make the plot hard to follow at times. Madeleine Carroll also stars, Hitchcock had used her as the icy blonde who charms Robert Donat in 'The 39 Steps' just one year earlier. Less suspenseful than most of Hitchcock's other films and has a lot less to offer. One of the master of suspense's lesser efforts. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 5!

SECRET AGENT was Hitchcock's follow-up to the hugely successful THE 39 STEPS, and continues that film's explorations of moral ambiguity and instability of identity. A very young John Gielgud portrays Edgar Brodie, an English soldier whose identity is deliberately eliminated by the government so his talents may be put to use as a professional spy under the name of Richard Ashenden. His mission: travel to Switzerland and execute a German spy before he crosses the Swiss border. Ashenden's accomplices in this state-sanctioned murder are the bizarre and campy bisexual "General" (Peter Lorre), who claims to be Spanish but is obviously nothing of the sort, and Elsa (Madeleine Carroll) a rather bloodthirsty woman assigned to play Mrs. Ashenden, who seems to have become an agent just to get a few thrills. Elsa's gung-ho mindset changes rapidly when the little group deceives and assassinates the wrong man. Elsa distracts the man's wife by asking for German lessons while Ashenden and the General take him on a mountain trek from which he will not return. Although the General actually does the killing, Ashenden is complicit in the unwitting crime, and seems to accept it as a matter of course. This murder sequence is extremely suspenseful, cross-cutting the male plot with the gradual realization of the doomed man's wife that something has happened to her husband because of the increasing agitation of the man's faithful dog. At the moment of the killing, the dog breaks out into eerie, unforgettable howls. After this event, Elsa realizes that what she thought was a game was actually in deadly earnest, and she tries to stop Ashenden from going through with the actual muder of the real agent, whose identity is uncovered almost by accident. The final sequences, including a fire alarm in a chocolate factory and a stunning train wreck, result in the deaths of the German agent and the General, leaving Elsa and Ashenden free to marry and quit the spy business. As another reviewer has noted, there is a strange and disquieting undercurrent of homosexuality among all the major male characters, who seem to be more interested in each other than any of them is in Elsa. Indeed, Madeleine Carroll has almost nothing to do in the last half of the film, and the usual sexualized banter between Hollywood lovers is actually given to Ashenden and the General! Indeed, Ashenden seems oddly reluctant to touch Elsa throughout the film and their love scenes are awkward at best. I can't say whether any of this was deliberate on Hitchcock's part, or whether was simply the result of casting a trio of homosexual or bisexual actors as the male leads, but the function of this choice undercuts the usual romance angle that we find in this type of story and renders the conclusion quite unbelievable, which perhaps makese sense, considering that no one in the world of this film is what he or she seems to be on the surface. Still, this is a surprisingly accomplished film which, despite some jarring shifts in tone, is watchable throughout. By the way, the film is supposedly set in 1916 and the events it chronicles deal with WW I, but don't you believe it for a second! The costumes and decors are strictly mid-30's, as is the language! Hitchcock obviously wished to comment on the moral choices forced on people by the deteriorating international situation of the times, and it isn't much of a stretch to relate these people to choices present only in the 1930's!

Another one of Hitchcock's early British films. Made just one year after Hitchcock's classic 'The 39 Steps'. Hitchcock's trademarks and usual suspense are greatly tampered making a more comic (?) film with some tense sexual undercurrents. John Gielgud, who is a master in stage acting and one of the most respected performers since Olivier stars as the secret agent who is sent to knock off an assassin. There are some surprising homosexual undercurrents to his character, he has the opportunity with Madeline Carroll but never does anything about it. Peter Lorre is also memorable as the Spanish (?) assassin, a bit too over the top at times but still delivers. The accents are extremely thick and lots of close-ups of letters and messages make the plot hard to follow at times. Madeleine Carroll also stars, Hitchcock had used her as the icy blonde who charms Robert Donat in 'The 39 Steps' just one year earlier. Less suspenseful than most of Hitchcock's other films and has a lot less to offer. One of the master of suspense's lesser efforts. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 5!

SECRET AGENT was Hitchcock's follow-up to the hugely successful THE 39 STEPS, and continues that film's explorations of moral ambiguity and instability of identity. A very young John Gielgud portrays Edgar Brodie, an English soldier whose identity is deliberately eliminated by the government so his talents may be put to use as a professional spy under the name of Richard Ashenden. His mission: travel to Switzerland and execute a German spy before he crosses the Swiss border. Ashenden's accomplices in this state-sanctioned murder are the bizarre and campy bisexual "General" (Peter Lorre), who claims to be Spanish but is obviously nothing of the sort, and Elsa (Madeleine Carroll) a rather bloodthirsty woman assigned to play Mrs. Ashenden, who seems to have become an agent just to get a few thrills. Elsa's gung-ho mindset changes rapidly when the little group deceives and assassinates the wrong man. Elsa distracts the man's wife by asking for German lessons while Ashenden and the General take him on a mountain trek from which he will not return. Although the General actually does the killing, Ashenden is complicit in the unwitting crime, and seems to accept it as a matter of course. This murder sequence is extremely suspenseful, cross-cutting the male plot with the gradual realization of the doomed man's wife that something has happened to her husband because of the increasing agitation of the man's faithful dog. At the moment of the killing, the dog breaks out into eerie, unforgettable howls. After this event, Elsa realizes that what she thought was a game was actually in deadly earnest, and she tries to stop Ashenden from going through with the actual muder of the real agent, whose identity is uncovered almost by accident. The final sequences, including a fire alarm in a chocolate factory and a stunning train wreck, result in the deaths of the German agent and the General, leaving Elsa and Ashenden free to marry and quit the spy business. As another reviewer has noted, there is a strange and disquieting undercurrent of homosexuality among all the major male characters, who seem to be more interested in each other than any of them is in Elsa. Indeed, Madeleine Carroll has almost nothing to do in the last half of the film, and the usual sexualized banter between Hollywood lovers is actually given to Ashenden and the General! Indeed, Ashenden seems oddly reluctant to touch Elsa throughout the film and their love scenes are awkward at best. I can't say whether any of this was deliberate on Hitchcock's part, or whether was simply the result of casting a trio of homosexual or bisexual actors as the male leads, but the function of this choice undercuts the usual romance angle that we find in this type of story and renders the conclusion quite unbelievable, which perhaps makese sense, considering that no one in the world of this film is what he or she seems to be on the surface. Still, this is a surprisingly accomplished film which, despite some jarring shifts in tone, is watchable throughout. By the way, the film is supposedly set in 1916 and the events it chronicles deal with WW I, but don't you believe it for a second! The costumes and decors are strictly mid-30's, as is the language! Hitchcock obviously wished to comment on the moral choices forced on people by the deteriorating international situation of the times, and it isn't much of a stretch to relate these people to choices present only in the 1930's!

i however didnt and ended up being completely bored for nearly 1 and 3/4 hours.Dont watch this version watch the robert powell version its totally cool.

Many critics and viewers alike feel that this is one of Hitchcocks' finest films: viewer response to the film today is often as enthusiastic as when it was first released. One of the directors' favourite themes is used here: the innocent caught in bizarre circumstances that he or she doesn't understand. Particularly effective in the film are rapid changes of situation and Hitchcock's obvious contention that nothing is sacred, especially if a location or situation can be used to demonstrate the cleverness of his protagonist. There is a funny scene with Donat and Carroll, handcuffed together, pretending to be newlyweds "forced" to spend the night together. Visually, the film enabled Hitchcock to transfer some silent film techniques most effectively: the silent dialogue between Donat and the farmer's kind wife as seen through the window of the farmer's cottage is memorable as is the wind blowing curtains at a window on a stormy London night. There was no doubt that Hitchcock was a genius; he was the real star of the film; two modern remakes pale in comparison to this original gem from 1935.

I don't know what movie the reviewers who were giving one or two stars watched, but it certainly couldn't have been Hitch's 39 Steps!!!
This movie is Exciting, Hilarious, and Sexy.
The Public Domain (extremely cheap) copies of CLASSICS such as this one are NEVER, EVER, EVER worth a dime! Good sound and picture quality are a MUST to get the most enjoyment out of this wonderful comedy-mystery.

Director Alfred Hitchcock's TOPAZ from 1969, is supposed to be tense, globe-trotting cold war thriller. Instead, what we get is a rather talkie film, with not much else. CIA Agent Michael Nordstrom (John Forsythe) hires French spy, Devereaux (Frederick Stafford), to head to Cuba. Once he arrives, Devereaux must see if rumors of Soviet missles are true, and to investigate the whereabouts of, NATO spy, called Topaz. The trail leads to Governments in crisis, murder, suicide, and a double agent. At 143 minutes, the film gets bogged down by too much exposition and doesn't really get good until its last 45 minutes. I am an admirer of Hitchcock's films, but I would say the movie is, one of only a handful of true mis-steps, in his career. The film does feature an inspired perfomance by actor John Vernon (ANIMAL HOUSE), as Rico Parra, a Castro-like character.

The DVD's best extra is the documentary on the film hosted by film critic Leonard Maltin. He is wise to point out the film's weaknesses, rather than, glossing over them. The 3 alternate endings further illustrate possible problems with the movie. A photo gallery, a rare production diary, theatrical trailer, cast and crew information, and more production notes top off the disc's extras. TOPAZ proves that, even Hitchock, wasn't immune from mediocrity.

This is perhaps the only Alfred Hitchcock color film I have not seen, until now. It is a rarity for television. And it would be edited for television broadcast anyway. Now on DVD, you can see TOPAZ in its entirty. If you have seen TOPAZ before, well here is the surprise. There are three very different endings of the film you may have not seen yet. This DVD version will show them all to you. If the ending chosen leaves you flat, in the Bonus Material section, you can see all three alternate endings and decide the one you like best. John Forsythe (Bachelor Father [1957-62],Charlie's Angels [1976-1981] as voice of "Charlie", Dynasty [1981-89]) sure does make the beginning act of the film much more interesting to watch. I can not say this is the best of Hitchcock, but I would recommend: REAR WINDOW (1954) and ROPE (1948).

1969's TOPAZ was Hitchock's second return in that decade to his earlier spy thriller films. Shot directly after 1966's TORN CURTAIN, Hitchcock's TOPAZ is a more matter-of-fact tale than a genuine thriller where real lives were at stake. Essentially an American intelligence head (John Forsythe) uses his friend in the French Intelligence (Frederick Stafford) to spy for the United States in Cuba and at the same time they try to ferret out a high French official passing on secrets to the Soviets. This all takes place during the height of the Cuban missile crisis. Roscoe Lee Browne as Philippe Dubois has the best scenes in the film as he has to get close to the Cuban United Nations delegation visiting Harlem and staying at the Theresa Hotel to photograph some secret papers from a high official (John Vernon as Rico Parra). These scenes were what Hitchcock called pure cinema. TOPAZ contains an interesting score by Parisian Maurice Jarre.

Director Alfred Hitchcock's TOPAZ from 1969, is supposed to be tense, globe-trotting cold war thriller. Instead, what we get is a rather talkie film, with not much else. CIA Agent Michael Nordstrom (John Forsythe) hires French spy, Devereaux (Frederick Stafford), to head to Cuba. Once he arrives, Devereaux must see if rumors of Soviet missles are true, and to investigate the whereabouts of, NATO spy, called Topaz. The trail leads to Governments in crisis, murder, suicide, and a double agent. At 143 minutes, the film gets bogged down by too much exposition and doesn't really get good until its last 45 minutes. I am an admirer of Hitchcock's films, but I would say the movie is, one of only a handful of true mis-steps, in his career. The film does feature an inspired perfomance by actor John Vernon (ANIMAL HOUSE), as Rico Parra, a Castro-like character.

The DVD's best extra is the documentary on the film hosted by film critic Leonard Maltin. He is wise to point out the film's weaknesses, rather than, glossing over them. The 3 alternate endings further illustrate possible problems with the movie. A photo gallery, a rare production diary, theatrical trailer, cast and crew information, and more production notes top off the disc's extras. TOPAZ proves that, even Hitchock, wasn't immune from mediocrity.

This is perhaps the only Alfred Hitchcock color film I have not seen, until now. It is a rarity for television. And it would be edited for television broadcast anyway. Now on DVD, you can see TOPAZ in its entirty. If you have seen TOPAZ before, well here is the surprise. There are three very different endings of the film you may have not seen yet. This DVD version will show them all to you. If the ending chosen leaves you flat, in the Bonus Material section, you can see all three alternate endings and decide the one you like best. John Forsythe (Bachelor Father [1957-62],Charlie's Angels [1976-1981] as voice of "Charlie", Dynasty [1981-89]) sure does make the beginning act of the film much more interesting to watch. I can not say this is the best of Hitchcock, but I would recommend: REAR WINDOW (1954) and ROPE (1948).

1969's TOPAZ was Hitchock's second return in that decade to his earlier spy thriller films. Shot directly after 1966's TORN CURTAIN, Hitchcock's TOPAZ is a more matter-of-fact tale than a genuine thriller where real lives were at stake. Essentially an American intelligence head (John Forsythe) uses his friend in the French Intelligence (Frederick Stafford) to spy for the United States in Cuba and at the same time they try to ferret out a high French official passing on secrets to the Soviets. This all takes place during the height of the Cuban missile crisis. Roscoe Lee Browne as Philippe Dubois has the best scenes in the film as he has to get close to the Cuban United Nations delegation visiting Harlem and staying at the Theresa Hotel to photograph some secret papers from a high official (John Vernon as Rico Parra). These scenes were what Hitchcock called pure cinema. TOPAZ contains an interesting score by Parisian Maurice Jarre.