Alfred-Hitchcock Movie Reviews

Saboteur is pure Hitchcock but most people always say that it is uneven but it is just the opposite! The climax and the ball scene are purely magic. Just watch the sweat and stuttering Cummings shows as he and Lane try to convince a group of well to do party goers that a plot is out on their lives and america as we know it! Cummings and Lane are so at ease that their acting seems effortless! The plot is Hitch all the way with turns and twists that you never expect coming! I have to say the opening alone is worth the price Hitchcock was a technical genius and by placing the screen so far from the action it makes this wartime thriller even more vast and apealing ,making the viewer seem miniscule to the plot and the action on the screen larger than life, genius! This film has it all the romance, fast paced action, and nail bitting action we have all grown to love from a Hitchcock movie. The Statue Of Liberty climax, leaves your heart in your mouth! Little by little, Cummings looses his gripe on a suspects sleeve and the threads pop, stitch by stitch until...

This is a terrific wartime thriller from Hitchcock of aircraft munitions worker Barry Kane (Robert Cummings), forced to take it on the lam and find a Nazi saboteur named Fry in order to clear his name, as he has been wrongly accused of the act of sabotage at the factory which killed his best friend. Hichcock's films often get compared unfairly to each other but taken on it's own terms this is a wonderfully entertaining suspense film with some genuinely memorable moments.

Kane is in constant danger both from the police and a network of saboteurs he has traced to a man named Tobin (Otto Kruger) at "Deep Springs Ranch". Tobin knows who Fry is and also knows no one will believe Kane. But as Kane narrowly escapes the police and the Nazi sympathizers he is aided by some along the way who can see he is a stand-up guy who has been wrongly accused.

One of those people is the blind father of Pat (Priscilla Lane), a billboard model who doesn't share her father's faith in Kane and starts out doing everthing she can to turn him over to the police but ends up falling in love and in just as much danger as he is. There is a particularly tense scene at a huge party as Kane confronts the cool and slimy Tobin but can't expose the house full of spys because Pat has been captured and will be killed if he does.

This film has some great moments of suspense. A plea for help from the trapped Pat, written in lipstick, floating down a skyscraper in New York waiting to be found, is just one of several memorable moments. The troop of a circus sideshow play a part in Kane's (and Pat's) journey as well, as his quest to clear himself takes him from Boulder Dam to Rockefeller Center to the Statue of Liberty.

There is a tight and witty script from Dorothy Parker among others, and Hitchcock's famous 'little touches' to keep this one interesting. Robert Cummings, who had proved himself in comedy the previous year with Deanna Durbin in "It Started With Eve" proved he could do more with this film. Priscilla Lane, pretty and likable, gives another nice performance here.

Taken on it's own this is a really good film, a great 'popcorn' movie for a lazy saturday afternoon. There's nothing wrong with that.....

This is a great film. It's vert adventurous, dramatic, and romantic. Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane make a lovely couple. It's a great film.

It would seem that the great Alfred Hitchcock felt obligated to make a screwball comedy, since it was all the rage in the thirties and forties. Despite the best efforts of a talented cast, however, this is a pretty charmless affair.

Oddly enough, Hitchcock's Suspicion, which was released the same year, also concerns a marriage lacking in trust, but it's considerably more successful. Maybe that's because it's easier to sympathize with and care about Joan Fontaine's character in that movie (and in his classic, Rebecca).

In Suspicion, Fontaine tries desperately to trust Cary Grant--who may or may not have married her for her money--whereas both of the the characters in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, played by Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery, lack trust in the other. That made them both unsympathetic to me, whereas the guileless Gene Raymond seemed all the more appealing in comparison, but he's presented as more of a rube (a bit like Ralph Bellamy, who always lost the girl to Grant) than as a serious contender for a sophisticated lady's affections.

If you're a Hitchcock fanatic, as I am, Mr. & Mrs. Smith is a must simply because it reveals a different side of the man, but if what you're really looking for is a first-rate screwball comedy, look no further than Howard Hawks' Twentieth Century, also with Lombard, or His Girl Friday, with Grant and Rosalind Russell.

Alfred Hitchcock broke out of his macabre mold to make an uproarious romantic comedy, and he couldn't have picked a better lady than Carole Lombard. Word for word and blow for blow she meets her irreverent husband head on and the results are hilarious! Newly married Robert Montgomery tries to play it nice and cool, but Lombard is red hot and that's what gives this comedy it's exhilarating edge. Expect the unexpected, but don't doubt for a minute that this guy and this girl are hopelessly attracted to each other. Alfred Hitchcock captures in this comedy, as he does in many of his other films, the unmistakable passion that boils just beneath the surface between the characters. But this time, there are no holds barred, so watch out! In a refreshing change of scenery, Hitchcock adds another laurel to his crown with this very memorable comedy.

I wish that this movie would come out on DVD soon. It is a wonderful comedy filled with humor and action. It is truly a wonderful movie to see if you are looking for a really good classic, but like other Hitchcock films, this movie is a comedy, not a thriller. So, if you are looking for a mystery by Hitchcock, don't pick this one. Hitchcock has a great sense of humor when he created this spectacular classic. If there is a DVD, (which I hope) I hope there are great special features. If you are looking for a great film to make you laugh, Go see this one!

Typical Hitchcock style - an innocent man framed for murder with all the evidence against him and now he has to prove his innocence, even if he has to bend the law by escaping from the gaol. This formula made famous by Hitchcock would be copied countless times and made into numerous movies since this...

This is an all British cast completely devoid of any Hollywood bigwigs who were ruling the roost at that time. This being made during the later years of his movie-making life (his penultimate film actually), Hitchcock also induced small amounts of nudity into this movie which of course blends well into the script and doesn't feel out of place. The fact that body doubles were used was clearly evident though. The parallel plot in the movie where Detective Oxford is being constantly tortured by his wife serving him delicacies like 'baked pig foot' was quite humorous.

The DVD as usual like all the other Hitchcock movies in the series 'The Alfred Hitchcock Collection' has a documentary on the making of Frenzy and interviews with the surviving cast and support crew. I usually don't see much of the DVD extras but the ones in any Hitchcock DVD is a must since it fills in all the cracks and very informative too.

All-in-all, an entertaining movie, quite out of the league of his earlier movies like 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' or 'North By Northwest', wherein while they all relied on suspense and storylines based on espionage in the times of the Cold War, as times changed, Mr. H did too by making the central thread of Frenzy rely mostly on brutal criminal behavior than anything else.

Hitchcock had been in a bit of an artistic slump when, after some thirty years, he returned to England for this, his next to last film--and the result was his final masterpiece.

Scripted with ghoulish humor by Anthony Schaffer, FRENZY opens with a ceremony on the banks of the Thames in which Londoners inagurate legislation to rid the river of pollutants... only to have the corpse of a naked woman wash ashore in the midst of their celebrations. She has been strangled with a tie--the latest victim of a serial killer who savagely rapes and then murders his victims by twisting his necktie around their throats. With the city in a panic and Scotland Yard desperate to catch the killer, suspicion falls on a down-on-his-luck bartender named Richard Blaney. Trouble is, he isn't the killer.

In a sense, FRENZY has a strangely Dickensian flavor. It is a film that by and large seems to happen in public places: pubs, parks, offices, hotels, and most particularly Covent Garden with its constant hustle and bustle that serves to conceal horrors that occur inches away from the safety of the crowds. Indeed, the city seems almost a "master character" in the film, constantly pressing in upon the humans that inhabit it. Fans of the British comedy series "Keeping Up Appearances" will recognize Clive Swift in a minor role, but for the most part the cast consists of unknowns--but while they lack name recognition they certainly do not lack for talent, playing with a realism that seems completely unstudied. Leading man Jon Finch (Richard Blaney) is perfectly cast as the attractive but disreputable suspect on the run, and he is equaled by his chum Barry Foster (Robert Rusk.) A special mention must also be made of the two female leads, Anna Massey and Barbara Leigh-Hunt--not to mention the host of supporting characters who bring the entire panorama of the great city to life.

In his earlier films, Hitchcock generally preferred to work by inference, implying danger and violence rather than openly showing it on the screen. PSYCHO broke the mold, and with FRENZY Hitchcock presents a sequence that many believe equals the notorious "shower scene:" a horrific rape and slow strangulation that leaves the viewer simply stunned. But having given us this horror, Hitchcock ups it with a scene in which we see no violence at all: just a camera shot that glides away from an apartment door, down the stairs, through the hall, and out into the busy street... as we shudder with the knowledge that the woman who just entered that apartment door is now being horrifically raped and murdered.

Hitchcock made one more film, a comic wink with twists of suspense starring Karen Black, Bruce Dern, and Barbara Harris called FAMILY PLOT--and it is an enjoyable film in its own right. But it is FRENZY that is the final jewel in the Hitchcock crown, a film to rank among his best. The DVD presentation includes a number of extras--including numerous interviews with the cast--that Hitchcock fans will find fascinating. All in all, FRENZY is fearsome, wickedly funny, and strongly recommended... but not for the faint of heart!

--GFT (Amazon.com Review)--

FRENZY, Hitchcock's penultimate film, was a critical and commercial success on its 1972 release, but has never become legendary the way PSYCHO, VERTIGO, or THE BIRDS have. This is partially because Hitchcock uses no glamorous movie stars here - the performers are all London stage veterans, not Hollywood personalities - and partially because this is a very unpleasant and disturbing work that leaves the viewer feeling rather stained and dirty afterwards. In FRENZY, Hitchcock culminates a lifetime of obsession with the figure of the unjustly accused man AND the rape-murder of a blonde woman. The film is the story of Dick Blaney (J. Finch), who is imprisoned as London's "Necktie Murderer" after both his ex-wife and his girlfriend are found dead. Blaney knows that the real murderer is his "friend," grocer Bob Rusk, and he breaks out of prison to catch and kill Rusk. He is prevented from doing so only by Inspector Oxford of Scotland Yard, who, unbeknownst to Blaney, has been on the trail of the real killer for some time. FRENZY disturbs because the "wrongly accused man," is a far from sympathetic character. Blaney is crude, violent and selfish, and is certainly capable of murder (hence his former profession as a soldier), and indeed, we see him sink to the level of Bob Rusk at the end of the film. On the other hand, the actual killer, like PSYCHO'S Norman Bates, seems like a calm, generous man who "loves flowers and fruit," and "has things to give," but who is actually a volcano of rage and hate. These complex characterizations leave the viewer in an uneasy frame of mind, as we are forced to identify with characters who are morally ambiguous, to say the least! The film's treatment of women is also horrifying. The rape-murder of Brenda Blaney (B. Leigh-Hunt) is the single longest scene in the film, and is indeed drawn out to a near-excruciating length. The camera dwells on the sight of Brenda's violation and strangling with an unbearable explicitness. Brenda wears a pale green sheath similar to Melanie's dress in THE BIRDS, and it seems that Hitchcock symbolically extinguished the figure of the chilly blonde who preoccupied him for so long. Also, FRENZY makes a constant connection between women, food, sex and pollution that is in fact quite repugnant. Despite all of this, FRENZY fascinates because it is so well-made, so elegantly directed, and so humourous. Our emotions are quite spectacularly manipulated by this film - you will find yourself cringing in revulsion one moment and laughing out loud the next, and this strange dichotomy makes for a - to say the least - unique viewing experience. A violent, funny and quite profound film that rewards repeated viewings, if you have the guts for it.

Director Alfred Hitchcock's 1955 film, THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY, is a dark mystery/comedy, that is time well spent. When a corpse suddenly appears, the residents of a small New England town are left to wonder how the victim died. After several failed attemps to bury the corpse, the townspeople are shocked to learn the true "Trouble" with Harry. Edmund Gwenn, John Forsythe, a young Jerry Mathers, and Shirley MacLaine (in her first film) all dive right into their roles. Thanks to its dark sense of humor and with Hitcock at the helm, the film remains good for a chuckle or two. Athough, I have to admit, that the movie is not my favorite among Hitchcock films, it still has plenty to like.

The DVD has a 30 minute-plus retrospective documentary, just like many other Hitchcock films on disc. As a follower of the director, I find these documentaries informative and well produced by Laurent Bouzereau. It also includes a photo gallery, with both production and publcity photgraghs. Rounding out the extras on the DVD are cast and crew information, production notes, and the vintage theatrical trailer. Recommended

Gerry Mathers is playing in a field and some shots are fired. Soon he comes up on a body. We are now prepared for suspense and mystery. Turns out pretty formula; everybody and nobody could have done it. At first it seems slow and weird as no one acts normal even for a movie character. They are all slow, nonchalant, and distracted. Harry gets dragged around and buried in controversy. Soon you can really get warped up in the story and anticipate the end. The movie never picks up you just have more loose ends to keep up with. No one cares who bumped Harry off as along is it does effect him or her.
The draw to the movie now days and maybe then is the cast of characters and the introduction of Shirley MacLaine. Edmund Gwenn looks pretty old here and is remembered also for his performance in "Outward Bound" (1930) 25 years earlier. There is still a Hitchcock feel. So sit back and enjoy it for what it is.

THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY is a morbid [dark] comedy, full of witty dialogue and offbeat performances. It is a masterpiece of dreary atmosphere(set in a beautiful fall country setting)and wonderful realization. It is endearing and feel-good, morbid and dark, and funny yet subtle, too. Alfred Hitchcock does good with this film. Edmund Gwenn is perfect, John Forsythe is intelligent, Mildred Natwick is endearing, Shirley Maclaine is wonderfully offbeat, Jerry Mathers is cute, and Mildred Dunnock is marvelously bland. The soundtrack is very whimsical and sets the mood perfectly. I recommend it to everyone. Also, if you can get hold of the novel of the same name by J. Trevor Story, it is excellent also with many funny additions.

In a beautiful performance, Fontaine plays the daughter of a wealthy English family who is charmed by a ne're-do-well wastrel; she is captivating in her playing. Cary Grant was well-suited for his role as Johnny, but I felt the melodramatics toward the end were rather banal and obvious; surely there could have been a more satisfying ending - could there not? Hitchcock is seen in his token cameo halfway thru the film - mailing a letter in a village mailbox.........Hitchcock's suspense thriller is about a woman who gradually realises she may be married to a killer (and may be next on his list). An excellent production unravels at the end due to RKO's insistence that Grant retain his "attractive" image. This forced the writers to opt for the usual dull (and rather infuriating) moral ending. Nigel Bruce received kudos for his playing of Johnny's friend "Beaky" and there are more than a few similarities in Fontaine's character which seem borrowed from REBECCA. Intriguing and finely played, the movie's end is an unfortunate let-down to some while others feel that it's fitting. As a trivia footnote to those who are interested -
it's fairly common knowledge among movie buffs that Hitchcock actually planted an incandescent light inside that "fatal" glass of milk which Grant so dramatically carries upstairs.....It could be said that the AA Fontaine won for this film cemented the practically life-long feud between she and her sister Olivia de Havilland; Olivia supposedly was jealous of his little sister winning an Oscar before she did - to say nothing of getting married first!

Suspicion is a movie that has an ending that frustrates some, and pleases others. Personally, I think the ending is good and appropriate, although it is a little abruptly presented. Joan Fontaine is quite good (I don't usually care for her performances) as a quiet, reserved English woman who marries the irresponsible Cary Grant, displeasing her father who assumed she would make a wiser choice. As time goes along, she begins to suspect that her husband may have killed someone and might be looking at her as his next victim. The inclusion of a character that writes murder mysteries adds to the mood and suspense. Grant is very effective as her husband, Johnny, and it's unusual to see him in a basically threatening, unsympathetic role. Hitchcock slowly drops clues along the way, and the glowing glass of milk is an excellent effect. Suspicion is a very good story, and although it's not the best example of Hitchcock's work, it's still a good movie by any standard.

There are no directors better than Alfred Hitchcock in setting a mood of menace or a string of clues that point to some truly climactic ending. In SUSPICION, Hitchcock presents a view of good guy Cary Crant as a leering, lying, cad who may be guilty of even worse criminal behavior.

Grant is Johnnie, who opens as the Cary Grant his fans have always known: suave, handsome, dashing. Joan Fontaine is Lina, a rather bookish frump who nevertheless catches Johnnie's eye. Early on, Johnnie's interest in Lina is at least partly based on her family fortune. When the audience sees Grant going against type by playing the caddish Johnnie, they can see that behind the smiling eyes and suave grin lay a twist that no one would have believed. Director Hitchcock slowly builds up the character of Johnnie by innuendo. At each step of the way, Lina hears and sees the implied charges, but she always tries to find a rational answer that does not point toward what the audience sees as the inevitable truth. Nigel Bruce as Beaky, a childhood chum of Johnnie's, supplies the same innocent charm that he displayed earlier as Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes series. Here as Beaky, Bruce reinforces the twin nature of Johnnie: that is one must accept his negative side if one is to as readily accept his positive. With each revelation, first from Beaky, then from Johnnie's employer (Leo G. Carroll), the mounting evidence accrues to convince Lina that her husband is guilty of a series of crimes ranging from theft, to deception, to murder. The famous scene in which Johnnie brings Lina a glass of glowing milk indelibly etches in the audience's collective mind the conviction that Johnnie is indeed the creep that he appears to be.

Unfortunately, Hitchcock could not allow the reputation of Cary Grant to be tarnished by ending the movie on the affirmation of a guilt that he had spent the better part of two hours so carefully constructing. The turn about of the closing scene leaves the viewer gasping in disbelief. Even if that viewer accepts the glib explanation of Johnnie of his true motivation, then this acceptance still leaves him as the same cad he was at the start of the film. Still, Joan Fontaine as Lina managed to snare an Oscar for best actress. SUSPICION is the kind of quality film that except for the last minute manages to engage the viewer in a race against time during which one woman must balance her feelings against mounting suspicions against a man whose charm is source both of her love and her deepest fears.

In a beautiful performance, Fontaine plays the daughter of a wealthy English family who is charmed by a ne're-do-well wastrel; she is captivating in her playing. Cary Grant was well-suited for his role as Johnny, but I felt the melodramatics toward the end were rather banal and obvious; surely there could have been a more satisfying ending - could there not? Hitchcock is seen in his token cameo halfway thru the film - mailing a letter in a village mailbox.........Hitchcock's suspense thriller is about a woman who gradually realises she may be married to a killer (and may be next on his list). An excellent production unravels at the end due to RKO's insistence that Grant retain his "attractive" image. This forced the writers to opt for the usual dull (and rather infuriating) moral ending. Nigel Bruce received kudos for his playing of Johnny's friend "Beaky" and there are more than a few similarities in Fontaine's character which seem borrowed from REBECCA. Intriguing and finely played, the movie's end is an unfortunate let-down to some while others feel that it's fitting. As a trivia footnote to those who are interested -
it's fairly common knowledge among movie buffs that Hitchcock actually planted an incandescent light inside that "fatal" glass of milk which Grant so dramatically carries upstairs.....It could be said that the AA Fontaine won for this film cemented the practically life-long feud between she and her sister Olivia de Havilland; Olivia supposedly was jealous of his little sister winning an Oscar before she did - to say nothing of getting married first!

Suspicion is a movie that has an ending that frustrates some, and pleases others. Personally, I think the ending is good and appropriate, although it is a little abruptly presented. Joan Fontaine is quite good (I don't usually care for her performances) as a quiet, reserved English woman who marries the irresponsible Cary Grant, displeasing her father who assumed she would make a wiser choice. As time goes along, she begins to suspect that her husband may have killed someone and might be looking at her as his next victim. The inclusion of a character that writes murder mysteries adds to the mood and suspense. Grant is very effective as her husband, Johnny, and it's unusual to see him in a basically threatening, unsympathetic role. Hitchcock slowly drops clues along the way, and the glowing glass of milk is an excellent effect. Suspicion is a very good story, and although it's not the best example of Hitchcock's work, it's still a good movie by any standard.

There are no directors better than Alfred Hitchcock in setting a mood of menace or a string of clues that point to some truly climactic ending. In SUSPICION, Hitchcock presents a view of good guy Cary Crant as a leering, lying, cad who may be guilty of even worse criminal behavior.

Grant is Johnnie, who opens as the Cary Grant his fans have always known: suave, handsome, dashing. Joan Fontaine is Lina, a rather bookish frump who nevertheless catches Johnnie's eye. Early on, Johnnie's interest in Lina is at least partly based on her family fortune. When the audience sees Grant going against type by playing the caddish Johnnie, they can see that behind the smiling eyes and suave grin lay a twist that no one would have believed. Director Hitchcock slowly builds up the character of Johnnie by innuendo. At each step of the way, Lina hears and sees the implied charges, but she always tries to find a rational answer that does not point toward what the audience sees as the inevitable truth. Nigel Bruce as Beaky, a childhood chum of Johnnie's, supplies the same innocent charm that he displayed earlier as Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes series. Here as Beaky, Bruce reinforces the twin nature of Johnnie: that is one must accept his negative side if one is to as readily accept his positive. With each revelation, first from Beaky, then from Johnnie's employer (Leo G. Carroll), the mounting evidence accrues to convince Lina that her husband is guilty of a series of crimes ranging from theft, to deception, to murder. The famous scene in which Johnnie brings Lina a glass of glowing milk indelibly etches in the audience's collective mind the conviction that Johnnie is indeed the creep that he appears to be.

Unfortunately, Hitchcock could not allow the reputation of Cary Grant to be tarnished by ending the movie on the affirmation of a guilt that he had spent the better part of two hours so carefully constructing. The turn about of the closing scene leaves the viewer gasping in disbelief. Even if that viewer accepts the glib explanation of Johnnie of his true motivation, then this acceptance still leaves him as the same cad he was at the start of the film. Still, Joan Fontaine as Lina managed to snare an Oscar for best actress. SUSPICION is the kind of quality film that except for the last minute manages to engage the viewer in a race against time during which one woman must balance her feelings against mounting suspicions against a man whose charm is source both of her love and her deepest fears.

This was Alfred Hitchcock's final film, and he was already in his late seventies when he made it. I think that at this point in his career, after fifty years of movie-making, he KNEW he no longer had to prove himself; his place was already set in history. Therefore, instead of making a film along the lines of Psycho, Vertigo, or Rear Window, he made a fun, lighter film along the lines of To Catch A Theif or The Lady Vanishes. The script of Family Plot was written by the same guy who wrote North By Northwest, which means there is a lot of clever, witty dialogue. The California locations are also a typical Hitchcock touch, and the fun car chase scene in the California hills is a classic. People expecting a SUSPENSE film will be disappointed, but I always felt that the "Master of Suspense" was a misleading title for Hitchcock, because his films are about much more than just suspense. Even so, Family Plot is not a masterpiece, but a treat for Hitchcock buffs. Hitchcock didn't go out with a bang, he went out with a wink, and this a great final "slice of cake" from a director who never took himself as seriously as we take him now.

FAMILY PLOT has earned a place in cinematic history simply because it turned out to be Alfred Hitchcock's last production. While the film was a financial success, like most Hitchcock pictures, it got mixed reviews because many found it too comic in tone and not "suspenseful" enough to have been directed by the Master. It is true that FAMILY PLOT is far from being one of Hitchcock's best films, and it is not the "great" movie one might have expected from this director after the spine-chilling and sordid FRENZY, FAMILY PLOT's immediate predecessor - it is not an ambitious production. However, although the tone of the film is the lightest and funniest of any Hitchcock movie since THE LADY VANISHES in 1939, this does not mean that FAMILY PLOT is free of some disturbing undercurrents which linger in the mind and demand repeated viewings. Like all the characters in the movie, FAMILY PLOT is not what it seems to be. On the surface, we have a light, comic thriller involving a psychic (Blanche/Barbara Harris) and her cabbie/actor boyfriend, Lumley (Bruce Dern) who have been hired by a rich old woman to find her missing nephew, the heir to a huge fortune. The missing nephew turns out to be the thouroughly repellent Arthur Anderson (William Devane), a sociopath who, with the help of his girlfriend Fran (Karen Black), kidnaps important people and holds them for ransom. But Anderson is not just a thief - he is also a killer. When he realizes Blanche and Lumley are trying to find out information about him, and that they know of his hidden identity (which I won't reveal here), he assumes that they are undercover agents looking to expose him as a kidnapper. Of course, Blanche and Lumley know nothing about this, and thus put themselves in great danger without realizing it. The plot of this film is very complex and I won't say any more about it for those of you who haven't seen it. The comic tone of the film is belied by some exteremely dark moral undercurrents. The dominant characters, Blanche and Anderson, are very similar to one another although in dramatic terms one is the heroine and the other the villain, and this put us in an uneasy relationship with all the people in the film. Anderson is a liar, a thief, and a con artist. Blanche (a fake psychic who bilks lonely old women out of their money) is also a liar, a thief (she essentially steals from the women she "consults" by faking her "powers") and a con artist motivated by greed. Both heroine and villain also dominate their lovers - Blanche uses her sexual hold over the rather dumb (but loving) Lumley to get him to adopt all sorts of identities to further their plans, and Anderson does the exact same thing to Fran, forcing her to assume a false appearance in the course of furthering his kidnappings. Although one couple is labelled as "good" and the other as "bad", morally, they are not so far apart from one another. Indeed, everyone in the film has manipulated and lied to others to achieve none-too-pleasant ends. Even old Julia Rainbird, whose guilt over ostracizing her dead sister and the girl's illegitimate child sets the story in motion, has used and deceived others for her own selfish goals. The vision of humanity in this film is essentially dark - people are monsters of greed and deceit, willing to use anyone and everyone, and even risking the lives of those they love in the process. This makes the film's undeniable humor even more disturbing - what are we really laughing at when we laugh at these sad and confused people? The performances by the four principals are top-notch, especially by Harris as the ditzy "psychic" who isn't the dumb blonde she appears to be, and by Devane as the evil killer who presents himself as a respectable businessman. Although there are no spectacular Hitchcockian "set-pieces", a scene where Blanche and Lumley are trapped in a speeding car is scary and funny at the same time, and the movie is filled with little Hitchcock touches that are simultaneously amusing and fetishistic (as when Karen Black idly throws the blonde wig she uses to disguise herself into a bin in the refrigerator - I don't know why, but this struck me as uproariously funny in context). This is a greatly underrated film which may not be the "masterpiece" people were hoping for from Hitch, but I think that reviewers have done this movie a disservice by comparing it to earlier films and not judging it on its own, considerable, merits. Hitchcock always gave us what we didn't expect, and FAMILY PLOT is no exception.

The last two films of Hitchcock are also his most underrated. 'Family Plot' is a joy to watch and so is 'Frenzy'. Very well acted and the master once again will tie you in his web of suspense.

This was Alfred Hitchcock's final film, and he was already in his late seventies when he made it. I think that at this point in his career, after fifty years of movie-making, he KNEW he no longer had to prove himself; his place was already set in history. Therefore, instead of making a film along the lines of Psycho, Vertigo, or Rear Window, he made a fun, lighter film along the lines of To Catch A Theif or The Lady Vanishes. The script of Family Plot was written by the same guy who wrote North By Northwest, which means there is a lot of clever, witty dialogue. The California locations are also a typical Hitchcock touch, and the fun car chase scene in the California hills is a classic. People expecting a SUSPENSE film will be disappointed, but I always felt that the "Master of Suspense" was a misleading title for Hitchcock, because his films are about much more than just suspense. Even so, Family Plot is not a masterpiece, but a treat for Hitchcock buffs. Hitchcock didn't go out with a bang, he went out with a wink, and this a great final "slice of cake" from a director who never took himself as seriously as we take him now.

FAMILY PLOT has earned a place in cinematic history simply because it turned out to be Alfred Hitchcock's last production. While the film was a financial success, like most Hitchcock pictures, it got mixed reviews because many found it too comic in tone and not "suspenseful" enough to have been directed by the Master. It is true that FAMILY PLOT is far from being one of Hitchcock's best films, and it is not the "great" movie one might have expected from this director after the spine-chilling and sordid FRENZY, FAMILY PLOT's immediate predecessor - it is not an ambitious production. However, although the tone of the film is the lightest and funniest of any Hitchcock movie since THE LADY VANISHES in 1939, this does not mean that FAMILY PLOT is free of some disturbing undercurrents which linger in the mind and demand repeated viewings. Like all the characters in the movie, FAMILY PLOT is not what it seems to be. On the surface, we have a light, comic thriller involving a psychic (Blanche/Barbara Harris) and her cabbie/actor boyfriend, Lumley (Bruce Dern) who have been hired by a rich old woman to find her missing nephew, the heir to a huge fortune. The missing nephew turns out to be the thouroughly repellent Arthur Anderson (William Devane), a sociopath who, with the help of his girlfriend Fran (Karen Black), kidnaps important people and holds them for ransom. But Anderson is not just a thief - he is also a killer. When he realizes Blanche and Lumley are trying to find out information about him, and that they know of his hidden identity (which I won't reveal here), he assumes that they are undercover agents looking to expose him as a kidnapper. Of course, Blanche and Lumley know nothing about this, and thus put themselves in great danger without realizing it. The plot of this film is very complex and I won't say any more about it for those of you who haven't seen it. The comic tone of the film is belied by some exteremely dark moral undercurrents. The dominant characters, Blanche and Anderson, are very similar to one another although in dramatic terms one is the heroine and the other the villain, and this put us in an uneasy relationship with all the people in the film. Anderson is a liar, a thief, and a con artist. Blanche (a fake psychic who bilks lonely old women out of their money) is also a liar, a thief (she essentially steals from the women she "consults" by faking her "powers") and a con artist motivated by greed. Both heroine and villain also dominate their lovers - Blanche uses her sexual hold over the rather dumb (but loving) Lumley to get him to adopt all sorts of identities to further their plans, and Anderson does the exact same thing to Fran, forcing her to assume a false appearance in the course of furthering his kidnappings. Although one couple is labelled as "good" and the other as "bad", morally, they are not so far apart from one another. Indeed, everyone in the film has manipulated and lied to others to achieve none-too-pleasant ends. Even old Julia Rainbird, whose guilt over ostracizing her dead sister and the girl's illegitimate child sets the story in motion, has used and deceived others for her own selfish goals. The vision of humanity in this film is essentially dark - people are monsters of greed and deceit, willing to use anyone and everyone, and even risking the lives of those they love in the process. This makes the film's undeniable humor even more disturbing - what are we really laughing at when we laugh at these sad and confused people? The performances by the four principals are top-notch, especially by Harris as the ditzy "psychic" who isn't the dumb blonde she appears to be, and by Devane as the evil killer who presents himself as a respectable businessman. Although there are no spectacular Hitchcockian "set-pieces", a scene where Blanche and Lumley are trapped in a speeding car is scary and funny at the same time, and the movie is filled with little Hitchcock touches that are simultaneously amusing and fetishistic (as when Karen Black idly throws the blonde wig she uses to disguise herself into a bin in the refrigerator - I don't know why, but this struck me as uproariously funny in context). This is a greatly underrated film which may not be the "masterpiece" people were hoping for from Hitch, but I think that reviewers have done this movie a disservice by comparing it to earlier films and not judging it on its own, considerable, merits. Hitchcock always gave us what we didn't expect, and FAMILY PLOT is no exception.

The last two films of Hitchcock are also his most underrated. 'Family Plot' is a joy to watch and so is 'Frenzy'. Very well acted and the master once again will tie you in his web of suspense.

Even A.H. at his worst is still better than most, but oh my goodness is this film awful. I watched it just last night on cable. It's so bad it's hilarious: the "Germans" are all American actors who speak hopelessly accented German. I lived in Germany for 3 years, including 1 in Berlin, so I'm qualified to say so -- the Berliners definitely have their own dialect, but it never sounded like this.

The situation of an American scientist pretending to defect to the Eastern Bloc for the purpose of stealing technology is an interesting premise, and Paul Newman is believable enough as the fake defector, but poor Julie Andrews! As the fiancé who got left behind, she was given nothing to do but chew her lip and wonder what she did wrong.

Once in East Berlin, however (and it all looks remarkably like West Berlin), the story gets bogged down in phony-baloney chase scenes where Paul has to ride busses and duck through museum hallways for half an hour to get away from the guy tailing him on a scooter. And the guy still catches him.

Don't get me wrong. Like a good train wreck this movie is worth watching, but PLEASE, if you do, be sure to see "The Man Who Knew Too Much" or (better still) "Rear Window" immediately afterward, just to remind yourself what Hitchcock was really capable of.

I really dont understand why this great little film which contains a superbly tense story and edge of the seat suspense is always dismissed as a disappointment.

On the contrary it has always been a favourite Hitchcock film of mine, certainly not up to the standards of the classic "Rebecca" or even "North by Northwest', but still a tense piece of film making.

It was Hichcock's 50th film and certainly was one of the last truly good films he directed in his illustrious career. His superb knack for creating suspence and tension is evident from the first frame and makes for a terrific piece of film making. Once the story gets going the pace and suspence never lets up as the main characters move from Norway to Copenhagen to East Berlin behind the Iron Curtain, hence the title. I feel Paul Newman and Julie Andrews...at first thought not an expected combination, work extremely well together and come across as a believable combination. Julie Andrews certainly doesn't have as flashy a role in "Torn Curtain" as she does in "The Sound of Music" "Thoroughly Modern Millie" or "Star" but she nevertheless handles her role of Sarah Sherman, personal secretary to the brilliant rocket scientist Professor Michael Armstrong (Newman),in a most interesting manner. Julie is always such an attractive performer and in "Torn Curtain" she gives her all in what is essentially a difficult role and one fraught with lots of unpredictable situations.

The story line of Paul Newman's character pretending to defect to East Germany to obtain valuable information on a new secret formula from a scientist in Leipzeig might appear dated now but it makes for a very clever and fast moving story. Newman's character pretends to go over to the Eastern Bloc only to discover that Andrews has followed him out of not only love but to see what he is actually up to. Their time in East Berlin is action packed and colorful to say the least as they encounter "personal guides" such as the infamous Gromek, the sweaty, gum chewing villian of the piece who ends up being murdered in one of the most memorable and painstaking murder sequences of Alfred Hitchcock's career aside from the shower sequence in "Psycho". It is a totally awe inspiring moment and while I dont like violence for violence sake this sequence is magnificently done, with no dialogue, and is easily, along with the nail biting bus chase, the most memorable part of the film and indeed in Hitchcock's career.

Hitchcock not only keeps the action moving at a break neck pace but he also populates his story with many interesting characters along the way as Newman and Andrews plan their escape from East Germany when they are exposed. One memorable character is the Polish Countess Kuchinska played by actress Lila Kedrova, who only wants a sponsor to be able to get to the United States. Her's is a tragic and thought provoking interlude in the main characters race to beat the German authorities over the border. Equally memorable is Check ballet dancer Tamara Toumanova who reappears a few times in the story and is almost responsible for intercepting the main characters escape. She is excellent in what is essentially a small but stand out part.

The overraul look of the film benefits from the many beautiful European locations utilised during filming and although East Berlin was impossible to film in circa 1966, an excellent use of similiar locations has been incorporated to give the effect of the dull and uninteresting Eastern Bloc existence.

As a piece of entertainment dealing with the Cold War "Torn Curtain" is first rate and never fails to be a great piece of viewing entertainment with two terrific performers in Paul Newman and Julie Andrews in the leads.

Why are all the film critics so down on this one? This is my favorite Hitchcock film, except for maybe Rear Window. Julie Andrews and Paul Newman are excellent in this Cold War thriller. So many suspenseful scenes in this...the bus scene, the Lindt scene with the Gamma 5 project, the ballet ruse, etc. This is much better than the appraised "North by Northwest," and "Notorious." Such a great plot, with more complications as it progresses. Everyone should see it! (Just beware of the farm scene)

Even A.H. at his worst is still better than most, but oh my goodness is this film awful. I watched it just last night on cable. It's so bad it's hilarious: the "Germans" are all American actors who speak hopelessly accented German. I lived in Germany for 3 years, including 1 in Berlin, so I'm qualified to say so -- the Berliners definitely have their own dialect, but it never sounded like this.

The situation of an American scientist pretending to defect to the Eastern Bloc for the purpose of stealing technology is an interesting premise, and Paul Newman is believable enough as the fake defector, but poor Julie Andrews! As the fiancé who got left behind, she was given nothing to do but chew her lip and wonder what she did wrong.

Once in East Berlin, however (and it all looks remarkably like West Berlin), the story gets bogged down in phony-baloney chase scenes where Paul has to ride busses and duck through museum hallways for half an hour to get away from the guy tailing him on a scooter. And the guy still catches him.

Don't get me wrong. Like a good train wreck this movie is worth watching, but PLEASE, if you do, be sure to see "The Man Who Knew Too Much" or (better still) "Rear Window" immediately afterward, just to remind yourself what Hitchcock was really capable of.

I really dont understand why this great little film which contains a superbly tense story and edge of the seat suspense is always dismissed as a disappointment.

On the contrary it has always been a favourite Hitchcock film of mine, certainly not up to the standards of the classic "Rebecca" or even "North by Northwest', but still a tense piece of film making.

It was Hichcock's 50th film and certainly was one of the last truly good films he directed in his illustrious career. His superb knack for creating suspence and tension is evident from the first frame and makes for a terrific piece of film making. Once the story gets going the pace and suspence never lets up as the main characters move from Norway to Copenhagen to East Berlin behind the Iron Curtain, hence the title. I feel Paul Newman and Julie Andrews...at first thought not an expected combination, work extremely well together and come across as a believable combination. Julie Andrews certainly doesn't have as flashy a role in "Torn Curtain" as she does in "The Sound of Music" "Thoroughly Modern Millie" or "Star" but she nevertheless handles her role of Sarah Sherman, personal secretary to the brilliant rocket scientist Professor Michael Armstrong (Newman),in a most interesting manner. Julie is always such an attractive performer and in "Torn Curtain" she gives her all in what is essentially a difficult role and one fraught with lots of unpredictable situations.

The story line of Paul Newman's character pretending to defect to East Germany to obtain valuable information on a new secret formula from a scientist in Leipzeig might appear dated now but it makes for a very clever and fast moving story. Newman's character pretends to go over to the Eastern Bloc only to discover that Andrews has followed him out of not only love but to see what he is actually up to. Their time in East Berlin is action packed and colorful to say the least as they encounter "personal guides" such as the infamous Gromek, the sweaty, gum chewing villian of the piece who ends up being murdered in one of the most memorable and painstaking murder sequences of Alfred Hitchcock's career aside from the shower sequence in "Psycho". It is a totally awe inspiring moment and while I dont like violence for violence sake this sequence is magnificently done, with no dialogue, and is easily, along with the nail biting bus chase, the most memorable part of the film and indeed in Hitchcock's career.

Hitchcock not only keeps the action moving at a break neck pace but he also populates his story with many interesting characters along the way as Newman and Andrews plan their escape from East Germany when they are exposed. One memorable character is the Polish Countess Kuchinska played by actress Lila Kedrova, who only wants a sponsor to be able to get to the United States. Her's is a tragic and thought provoking interlude in the main characters race to beat the German authorities over the border. Equally memorable is Check ballet dancer Tamara Toumanova who reappears a few times in the story and is almost responsible for intercepting the main characters escape. She is excellent in what is essentially a small but stand out part.

The overraul look of the film benefits from the many beautiful European locations utilised during filming and although East Berlin was impossible to film in circa 1966, an excellent use of similiar locations has been incorporated to give the effect of the dull and uninteresting Eastern Bloc existence.

As a piece of entertainment dealing with the Cold War "Torn Curtain" is first rate and never fails to be a great piece of viewing entertainment with two terrific performers in Paul Newman and Julie Andrews in the leads.

Why are all the film critics so down on this one? This is my favorite Hitchcock film, except for maybe Rear Window. Julie Andrews and Paul Newman are excellent in this Cold War thriller. So many suspenseful scenes in this...the bus scene, the Lindt scene with the Gamma 5 project, the ballet ruse, etc. This is much better than the appraised "North by Northwest," and "Notorious." Such a great plot, with more complications as it progresses. Everyone should see it! (Just beware of the farm scene)