The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

4/5

Alfred Hitchcock's remake of his own The Man Who Knew Too Much is engaging from beginning to end. It is essentially the same mistaken identity tale that Hitchcock loves to tell. It isn't ground-breaking work by any means, but it is entertaining and thrilling. Hitchcock is a master craftsman, an expert at spinning yarns and pulling out the tension from any premise, and he keeps us spellbound with his filmmaking. The final orchestra scene is still as edge-of-your-seat as it was almost 60 years ago. Hitchcock has lost none of his touch. Despite the occasional innocent old-timey racism and brown/whiteface, it manages to stay fresh and feel novel. The Man Who Knew Too Much is a classic Hitchcock film that will delight any modern fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049470/

North by Northwest (1959)

4.9/5

Hitchcock's North by Northwest is a genuinely satisfying movie from start to finish. It is probably not one of Hitchcock's best, but it is certainly one of his most enjoyable. The plot follows everyman Roger Thornhill (Grant) after getting kidnapped by Mr. Vandamm (Mason) and his goons. They have confused him for a spy named George Kaplan and thus attempt to murder him. But he escapes (in an exhilarating and hilarious getaway) and then retaliates by trying to find out who his assailants were and who the real George Kaplan is. But they are one step ahead of him and frame him for murder! He leaves town on a train that is crawling with cops, but he gets to Chicago undetected with the help of Eve Kendall (Saint), who we later learn is not at all the stranger she appears to be.

The plot is surprisingly complicated in its typed-out retelling, but it's actually quite easy to follow when you're watching the movie. That is one of Hitchcock's strengths: to think in the shoes of someone watching the movie for the first time, to tell it exactly according to what they are thinking, and to engage the audience every step of the way. The acting is pitch-perfect as you can expect from the stellar actors. Cary Grant is witty in his jokes and charismatic in his delivery. Eva Marie Saint is just the right amount of sexy in her subtle innuendo without being slutty and just the right amount of hurt in her furious indignation without being melodramatic. The special effects are a bit dated, but they still work because they're not essential to the story/experience--they just add to it. Hitchcock flexes his suspense muscles and puts them to good use in this film. Overall, this is an incredibly engaging and stimulating movie by the true master of suspense.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053125/

Vertigo (1958)

5/5

Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo is a tantalizing masterpiece. The answers to its mysteries ebb and flow beyond your grasp, always so close but always out of reach. It opens itself up to various interpretations, letting you come to your own conclusions without ever affirming or rejecting them. The movie tackles a great many intertwining topics: for me, the most potent one is the need for people to control their own lives, sometimes by controlling others' lives as well. It contorts itself into a tale of obsessive love, of purity and perversion, and of deception and dual identities. It is dark, often morbid, and unsettling, but it is the kind of work you will never forget.

The movie starts in the middle of a cop chase. Leaping from rooftop to rooftop, Scottie Ferguson (Stewart) slips and barely catches a gutter. Perilously hanging on for dear life, he looks down more than five stories and a crippling vertigo paralyzes him. Another policeman reaches down to help, only to fall to his own doom. Scottie's fear of heights is cemented through this traumatic event and he quits the police force. Soon after, he is contacted by an old college buddy who requests his assistance in tailing his wife. He suspects her of being possessed by a ghost and is afraid that the spirit inhabiting his wife, who committed suicide at age 26, will cause her to do the same thing. As he begins following her, Scottie develops an attraction for her that soon turns into an unhealthy fixation. But that is only half the story. After that, it spirals more and more out of control, beyond anything you could have predicted.

Watching Vertigo again, and thinking about it next to Notorious and Psycho, I am struck by Hitchcock's mastery of structure. He seems attracted to scripts with unconventional story arcs and plot progression. Most directors would struggle against invoking boredom with such an uncertain framework. Hitchcock uses it to his advantage to generate suspense, manipulate your expectations, and telegraph events to their breaking points. You have never seen a story told this way, and so you have no idea what might come next. In a horror movie like Psycho, that's the most terrifying fear you can imagine. In Vertigo, that's the strongest, most mesmerizing pull you will ever experience.

The casting of Jimmy Stewart, originally maligned by critics and by Hitchcock himself, turns out to be one of the film's greatest strengths. Stewart is America's hero, the original Tom Hanks, the everyman, the good guy; he is Mr. Smith at Washington and George Bailey with his wonderful life. And here he is deeply disturbed, twisted so far from his off-screen celebrity persona that you feel a torment brewing inside yourself. You want to care for him, you want to believe he is the sweet, kind-hearted soul you know and love, but witnessing his repugnant actions sickens you. No other actor could have pulled off that necessary duality.

The cinematography is, as always, remarkable. The signature track in, zoom out shot reminds us of his technical abilities, but there are many more scenes where his sense of atmosphere defines how he shoots. In the scene at Ernie's where Scottie first sees Madeleine (Novak), the camera moves as if in a dream. The room brightens when she passes by and dims after she leaves. Her platinum hair, pinned up into a spiral, and all-gray suit give her an eerie aura. Hitchcock's use of colors is entrancing; they are inserted into scenes with such presence and purpose that it makes you wonder what they mean. Because it has to mean something, right?

The movie has some flaws. The special effects, both in the opening credits and nightmare sequence, severely date the film. Several key plot points remain unexplained and some of the dialogue rings a little off to our modern ears. (Are people really diagnosed with "acute melancholia, coupled with a guilt complex"?) And for some reason, which may be entirely circumstantial and outside the realm of the film, the movie wasn't as gripping on this viewing as it has been in the past. Still, this is one of Hitchcock's finest movies. I'll now admit that Psycho is my favorite Hitchcock, but I would not have any cause to disagree with someone who placed Vertigo or Notorious in that spot. Vertigo is a masterpiece that would define the entire work of any other director and is essential viewing for anyone interested in cinema as an art form.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/

Notorious (1946)

5/5

Hitchcock has been named the master of suspense, and for good reason. Notorious remains one of the most nail-biting movies I have ever seen. It is one of Hitchcock's finest films, without a shred of doubt. The plot follows Cary Grant as a federal agent involved in the German spying business and Ingrid Bergman as the daughter of a German recently found guilty of treason. He has been told by his superiors to enlist her help, and after meeting they quickly fall in love. The job she is requested to do involves spying on a man who used to love her, played expertly by Claude Rains, and so the complicated web of emotions begins. I will let you enjoy discovering the rest of the plot when you check it out yourself.

The more I watch Hitchcock's Notorious, the fonder I grow of it. The first time I saw it I gave it 4 stars, the second time I gave it 4.9 stars, and finally I've come to my senses on this third viewing and given it the 5 stars it deserve. Watching it again, I am struck by its subtle expert touches. Hitchcock uses common, everyday items and images to generate suspense: wine bottles on ice, keys on a keychain, coffee cups on saucers. He uses restrained editing and long takes with unerring camera movement to build that suspense, instead of rapid-fire cutting or close-ups on sweating faces. He uses silence and our own imagination to terrify us instead of trite musical chords or gratuitous violence found in modern movies. He uses intelligence to craft the ending instead of cheap twists, and the result is something that absolutely cannot be forgotten. That walk down those stairs is awe-inspiring in its simplicity; that return trip to the house remains haunting in its condemnation.

But the spying is only part of the movie. There is an equally memorable romance that both flabbergasted me with its brutality and floored me with its beauty. The performances by all three leads are compelling and believable, heart-breaking and redemptive. The love story and espionage tale are not two discrete parts of one movie, but are intertwined in both plot and emotion. Each makes the other more fulfilling and rewarding. The suspense is more terrifying because we care about those involved, and the romance is more powerful because the stakes are so high. Can you imagine what that kiss outside the wine cellar must have been like for them? Can you imagine?

Notorious is unrelenting in many departments. It succeeds because it traps us in its world, it envelops us in its terrifying environment, and it softens us with empathy for its characters. We feel everything we are supposed to because Hitchcock is such a deft magician with the art of film. He absolutely controls us in this movie, but he does it with heart and humor. And we walk out of this movie thankful for his talent, thankful for the entire experience.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038787/

Frenzy (1972)

4/5

Frenzy sees Hitchcock return to London to follow the story of the necktie murderer and, of course, the man falsely accused of it. It doesn't have the same feel and texture as most of Hitchcock's films. It is more "adult," both in language and content. The film is grittier and more graphically violent, darker yet at the same time funnier. The mood is closer to British gangster films like Get Carter and The Long Good Friday. It was extremely shocking to see nudity in a Hitchcock film, as well as the graphic depiction of rape and murder. But it is not all gloom and doom, as this is by far, hands-down, his funniest film. I was laughing nearly the entire time. My favorite parts involve the police chief and his "gourmet" cook of a wife, but a close second is the scene in the potato truck with the victim experiencing rigor mortis. This movie could have been directed by the Coen brothers and would have fit in their oeuvre very comfortably.

Many scenes are surprisingly experimental for a man so near the end of his career. He lets his camera sit outside, watching the exterior of a building, as a new victim is found. We watch in silence, waiting for her scream. Another time, the camera backs out of the murderer's apartment after he takes his next victim inside. It goes down the stairs and backs out the hallway until it retreats to the streets of London. In both these scenes, we know what is happening, and Hitchcock lets our brains fill in the gaps, involving us and even implicating us. Another shot that has now been replicated numerous times shows a woman coming out of a pub, emotionally distraught, and the sounds of the streets of London fade out for several seconds until her introspection is cut off by a man who appears behind her, seemingly out of thin air.

As in nearly every Hitchcock film, it was technically outstanding. The editing, the music, and the acting were all spot-on. But there were also some problems with the movie. It seems to have no center or focus because of how it's told. For about thirty minutes in the middle of the movie, we follow the travails of the true murderer instead of the man accused of it. Why? Hitchcock uses this scene to generate tension, but it is not a tense moment for the person we sympathize with. Interestingly, we don't want him to get away, but to get caught. Additionally, there are several minor characters who disappear halfway in and whose motivations are never explained. These are rather minor quibbles with a great film, a film that is perhaps Hitchcock's most graphically violent and darkly comedic. Watch it. If you like the Coen brothers, Get Carter, or The Long Good Friday, you will enjoy this movie immensely.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0068611/

Torn Curtain (1966)

4/5

The first half of Torn Curtain was absolutely amazing (Hitchcock at his best), while the second half was simply disappointing. The plot follows Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman), an American physicist during the Cold War who pretends to defect to gain nuclear secrets from a (much-smarter) Communist scientist there. His fiancée (Julie Andrews) has followed him against his will and unaware of his pretense.

The tension, the wit, and the romance in the first half were all there, and in just the right quantities. The characters were well-developed, and the acting stellar. Our hearts are with the protagonists every step of the way. The pacing and editing were extremely precise. The shots, as always, were incredible. The music, though not by Herrmann, was still riveting and a good accompaniment to the movie's mood. But the best part of the first half is that it contained one of the most incredible murder scenes ever committed to film--I was nearly breathless the entire time. This movie should be seen just for that one scene. The second half was marred by a meandering, overlong escape, the introduction of a million worthless side characters, and a complete lack of progression and build-up. I did like the very unexpected re-introduction of a very minor character from the first half of the movie, but that is pretty much it. Despite moments of tension, it just didn't build up to anything and bored me. I was just waiting for it to end. The finale has nothing on The Great Escape. Even with the problems in the second half, the first half is just too good not to recommend it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0061107/

The Wrong Man (1956)

4.9/5

The Wrong Man is the true story of Manny Balestrero, a musician falsely accused of armed robbery. The film, shot on location in New York City, is strikingly authentic. In this story, Hitchcock has found the epitome of everything he has searched for during his entire career. Bernard Herrmann's score is absolutely wonderful and a perfect fit for this piece. The acting by Fonda and Miles is phenomenal and unforgettable. Hitchcock makes you feel for the characters, and then twists your heart again and again with every turn his life-changing predicament takes. Hitchcock has almost outdone himself in terms of cinematography and shot composition. The framing is beautiful and the camera movement is natural. He knows what we want to look at and he shows us exactly that in the exact manner we expect to see it in.

Four scenes stand out in my memory. The first is when Manny goes to the insurance agency. The tellers' suspicion is evoked almost too perfectly through flawlessly tense editing and simple, silent shots. The second shows Manny being taken to prison in a paddy wagon, the shame he experiences from being with criminals forces his head down and his eyes on everyone's shoes. The third, though, is my favorite in the entire film. As Manny is taken to his jail cell, the camera follows him until it gets stopped by the cell door, then it peeks in through the peephole and continues through the peephole to see him investigate his new home before backing back out. It is an unbearably haunting moment. The fourth I don't want to reveal, but suffice it to say that it reminded me of the end scene in Kurosawa's High and Low.

I'm conflicted about the ending. I know it's limited by the facts, but it almost seems as if everything the movie was building up to was flipped over and turned on its head with the final words. As Hitchcock was a part of the Hollywood studio system, it may have been forced on him by his producers. And the human side of me does appreciate those last words, but my artistic sensibilities remain irked by the about-face at the end. Either way, this is definitely one of Hitchcock's best, both technically and thematically. I was enthralled the entire time and loved it immensely.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0051207/

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

3/5

The Trouble with Harry is another one of Hitchcock's lighter films, but it doesn't work as well as his others. It doesn't play like a Hitchcock at all, but like a very British black comedy. As a Hitchcock, it's a bit disappointing; as a British black comedy, it's only slightly above average. The shot compositions were simple yet elegant, and the cinematography captured the colors beautifully. There are some very clever moments, some extremely witty dialogue, and a truly inspired red herring. But there are also pacing issues, worthless scenes, flat characters, and no build-up or anticipation. The characters' back stories were bland and the plot and dialogue often wandered into nonsense. And there's a score by Bernard Herrmann that, while good on its own, doesn't quite fit the mood of the piece. But I love the closing title card they use to replace THE END. If you want to know what it is, you'll have to watch it!

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0048750/

To Catch a Thief (1955)

4/5

To Catch a Thief feels like North by Northwest lite. It is an entertaining film by a man who knows how to entertain, but nothing more. It is neither realistic nor relevant. Instead, it is escapism at its best, extravagant people doing extravagant things on extravagant sets wearing extravagant clothing and extravagant jewelry. Cary Grant's charisma and Grace Kelly's beauty are unparalleled in this film and work wonderful together here. Though the plot focuses on Grant as a reformed cat burglar who is suspected of new thefts and has to clear his name, it's not a heist movie at all. It is closer to a romantic comedy with an adventure/James Bond-style overtone. And it works so well. There are so many funny scenes to love in this movie, but my personal favorite is when Grant "accidentally" drops a chip into a woman's cleavage at the casino. I think I enjoyed the movie a little bit more than I should have because it takes place at Cannes, and I'd just been there earlier this summer. While watching the movie, I recognized the beach and the Carlton Hotel that Kelly's character and her mother were staying at--the same one that I saw Jerry Seinfeld zipline down as a promotion stunt for Bee Movie!

It does have its problems though. Hitchcock seems to overindulge in many shots, loving his relatively new color photography and not wanting to cut any of it out. There are so many lingering, unnecessary shots of countrysides and the like. The plot isn't perfectly cohesive and half the dialogue is in French, untranslated. There are a lot of side plots and plot holes and an unsurprising "twist" as to the identity of the copycat burglar. Still, a very entertaining movie and worth checking out for Hitchcock fans, Grant fans, and Kelly fans.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0048728/

Lifeboat (1944)

4/5

Lifeboat's genre of war drama is not really the Hitchcock thriller staple, but he injects those elements he's familiar with into this survival/Lord of the Flies-style plot, wherein survivors of a torpedoed ship find themselves in the same lifeboat as one of the Germans responsible. Given that this entire movie takes place on the lifeboat, it is surprisingly enjoyable and almost never stale or boring, although it is very talky and heavily character-based. Luckily, the characters are fully fleshed-out in a naturalistic patchwork manner; they don't go around in a circle and talk about who they are, but their pasts have a way of popping up and exposing the characters and their motivations through conversation. Unluckily, the acting is far from extraordinary (although capable and not embarrassingly bad). There is also a suspense and mystery that Hitchcock brings to the piece. He heightens the tension almost methodically and constantly engages and involves the viewer throughout most of the movie. That being said, I must also say that the tension sags severely for about 10 or 15 minutes at that crucial point about two thirds of the way into the movie. It felt like Spielberg's Duel, where the tension he had worked so hard to build up so high was pointless, because they just go back to ground zero again.

What made me contemplate giving this movie a 4.9 was the thematic message Hitchcock presents. He exposes the darkness and distrust inherent in man and the brutal extent of the survival instinct. Throughout the course of the movie, every character reverts back to the basest and most primal human behavior. Everything society has ruled on as being acceptable or unacceptable is completely flipped on its head out here in the boat. A woman who prides herself on her place in society ends up losing every aspect of what she thought was her identity. A reformed criminal is forced to once more use the dishonest techniques that landed him in jail in the first place. A man participates in mob-based violence that he vehemently argued against at the beginning. And on and on, until everything these people have worked for is destroyed. The steady unraveling of the American dream makes this one of Hitchcock's bleakest films.

What lowered this film to a rating of 4 was its dated nature. The special effects were noticeable, and I never really felt like I was on a boat. The use of rear-projection was a little too obvious. The background was rocking up and down like crazy, and yet the shadows on the characters remained static. Please, I can only suspend my disbelief for so long. There was another huge problem for me. Some of the dialogue and acting simply fell flat. At times their actions and words were too exaggerated or unnatural that the just seemed silly to me as a modern audience member. Despite the problems listed here and in the first paragraph, I still think this is a great movie. I highly recommend it if the plot sounded interesting, if you like Lord of the Flies, or if you like Hitchcock.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0037017/

Psycho (1960)

5/5

Psycho is a brilliant masterpiece, unharmed by its age, the spoofs, and the gorier flash of modern horror movies. We all know the infamous shower scene, with its shrill, staccato strings, and yet this movie is as shocking now as when it first came out. Hitchcock knows that suspense is not about showing the grotesque, but telegraphing out the events leading up to said violence. That is how this picture achieves its longevity: it does not show the newest, grisliest, most realistic deaths ever filmed up until that point in time, but rather it reveals the timelessness of evil as a wolf hiding in sheep's clothing. It shows how simply such evil can creep up on any one of us, a well-intentioned wrongdoing that escalates and escalates until it completely consumes us. And all from a desire to do good.

The acting by all parties is superb, but Anthony Perkins is simply unparalleled. His nervous habits, his innocent persona, his sometimes subtle, sometimes shockingly violent changes in demeanor--all interwoven in an unforgettable and painfully believable performance. He is able to garner your sympathy at once and you never want to doubt him for a second. The other actors stood their ground quite well. The most memorable part of Janet Leigh's acting was her piercing, powerful eyes as she drives away with the stolen money, staring down the camera and defying us to say she made the wrong decision. But she only has herself to convince, and she cannot do it.

There is so much in this movie for filmmakers to love. Hitchcock, the consummate showman, peppers it with needlessly difficult shots as if to prove his master status. A low shot showing Arbogast ascending a staircase, with the ceiling visible and even focused on, then the camera lifts up weightlessly to that same ceiling we saw, and sits there, perching down as if a bird watching the ensuing events. From that same spot where we know no rig resides. Other shots are beautiful in their own right, yet more subtle in their genius. The shifts in view when a character stands up or sits down, the close-ups, the resistance to editing. Bernard Herrmann's score is a perfect companion, and stays in the mind of any who have (or even haven't) seen this film. And yet none of these aspects are the best part of the movie.

In fact, Hitchcock's brilliance lies in the overall structure of the film. He sets it up as a typical mystery thriller about Marion Crane stealing $40,000 and running from the cops. We relate to her because she does it for love. As she runs, the paranoia infiltrates her entire being. Her actions become suspicious and the net tightens ever closer. The anxiety is palpable, even putting Polanski to shame, until she gets to the Bates Motel and, after a short discussion with Norman, decides to return the money. Feeling cleansed of her mistake, she gets in the shower and then ... is killed. Hitchcock knows that none of her feelings and changes in character make a difference in the end, because she is not the main character, but he doesn't want the audience to know that. And so he directs it as such. A third of the way into the film, Hitchcock switches main characters on us. Where he succeeds is in getting us to immediately sympathize with Bates. When he tries to sink her car in the swamp and hide the evidence, our heart skips a beat because the car stops sinking. Will it stay visible? Eventually it sinks, but aren't we twisted to want this man to get away with murder? The murder of a character we grew to love and respect, no less.

The movies does have its flaws. Some edit-heavy scenes, some dated special effects, some meandering dialogue. Much has been said about the ending with the psychiatrist. Many critics despise it, considering it to almost ruin this perfect film with its banality and overtness. But I do not have such qualms with it. I think it wraps up the story nicely and it humanizes Norman Bates by explaining in scientific terms without judgmental bias what happened to his mind. Hitchcock has always loved the psychology and motivations behind his characters, and suggesting that this part should be removed would be dismissive of Hitchcock's own interests. I agree that it is a bit blunt, but not without merit and not so bad as to warrant such ferocious antagonism. It grounds the film in reality, distinguishes Bates from pure evil, and gives our hearts a chance to beat more slowly.

For the past couple of years, both Psycho and Vertigo have shared for me the title of Best Hitchcock Film. Vertigo started with the title, but recently, Psycho had been edging ahead. But now I feel a strong desire to watch Vertigo again and give it another shot because it opens itself up much more readily to significant analysis. Either way, these two films are without a doubt his best, and by far my favorite of them all.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0054215/

I Confess (1953)

4/5

I Confess is a wonderful lost gem from Hitchcock's oeuvre. A priest (Montgomery Clift) is falsely accused of murder and, despite knowing who the real murderer is, he decides to keep silent because it was revealed to him during confession. In typical Hitchcock style, the composition and camerawork were excellent, but the complex and realistic characters were the best part of this movie. Much like Casablanca, the audience's emotional attachment to each character shifts throughout the film, switching back and forth between love and hate as information is gradually revealed. I loved how seemingly minor characters (such as Keller's wife) emerge as being vital to the plot, tension, and even message. The acting by all parties was very good overall, although at times a bit too exaggerated. While the story plodded along in the middle (and was interesting although not particularly suspenseful), the thrilling finale was especially brilliant. It went deeper into the consequences of the characters' actions than you thought it would, and the characters themselves feel much fuller and richer as their motivations and regrets (or lack thereof) are further revealed.

I felt that some of this movie was below average and could have been heavily improved upon. The script had some problems, not in dialogue, but in overall structure. The heavy use of flashback in Anne Baxter's interrogation, coupled with its clunky style and lack of rhythm, simply did not work. The trial could have and should have been made more compelling; it seemed as if there was no climax here, merely a playing out of events. And while the score by Dimitri Tiomkin wasn't bad, it has nothing on the perfectly seamless integration Hitchcock usually has with Bernard Herrmann. I also have no idea why the film was set in Quebec; it just seemed odd. The rest, though, is an unexpected joy to behold, and is highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0045897/

Suspicion (1941)

3/5

The one word to describe Suspicion is disappointing. The plot follows Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine as they embark on a relationship together, only for her to find out that he's not all that he seems. She gets suspicious of him and soon begins to fear for her life. Like any Hitchcock, the thrills and suspense are there in full force. The tension ratchets up as the movie slowly but deliberately evolves from an air of unease to outright fear and paranoia, as only Hitchcock knows how to do. The acting was actually quite good (subtle and not overly sensational). I really really loved the character of Beaky--what great comic relief while still maintaining a naturalistic air of realism. He's a caricature, but never feels like it because of the brio and verve in his role.

Being a Hitchcock, albeit an early one, the movie has a lot to live up to. And it does. Up until the final 60 seconds of the film, where it falls completely flat and disgraces itself with a silly, dissatisfying ending. Underwhelming seems too tame a word to describe it. It is so out of left field, coming from such a strong start and from such a standout director, that you are completely blown away by how such a bad ending could have sneaked its way into an otherwise stellar film. I also though the beginning was a bit slow compared to his later, better pieces. Instead of heightened tension, the film started out in an eerily unsettling way because everything about Grant's character was off just a little but you couldn't put your finger on what it was about him. It paced itself well from there and, while it was interesting and effective, it wasn't exactly what I wanted or expected from his movie. Also, the music was a little more gimmicky and less appropriate than in his later ones. I would like to point out that the same basic plot can be found in Nicholas Ray's phenomenal noir In a Lonely Place, which stars Humphrey Bogart. I was enraptured much more and found it thematically richer than this film; I highly recommend it. If Suspicion's plot attracts you to it, go see In a Lonely Place instead. You will not regret it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0034248/

Foreign Correspondent (1940)

3/5

This movie, as with all Hitchcock films, has scenes that put you on the edge of your seat. But not enough. The first thirty minutes of introduction were boring and, when looking at the entire piece, unnecessary for the most part. Much of the plot felt contrived, trifling, and excessively circuitous. The plot focused too much on politics and details, which is perhaps this movie's greatest downfall. It was too preachy and not entertaining enough. The movie is a surprising atypical Hitchcock because there just isn't that much suspense in the movie to keep you occupied for 2 hours. The movie should have been 60-90 minutes in length. The music, usually extremely fitting and thrilling in Hitchcock's films, felt melodramatic and cheap in this one.

The movie did have many good qualities (it is a Hitchcock after all). The camera movements were unerringly fluid and the shots were well-composed, although some of the special effects were a bit obvious and painful to watch. What little suspense and excitement there was fit comfortably in the Hitchcock oeuvre. There was much more comedy than in his later films; the dialogue was witty and fast-paced, but sometimes a bit too fast-paced. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this movie to a Hitchcock fan expecting a typical Hitchcock movie because it just doesn't live up to those expectations.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0032484/

Dial M for Murder (1954)

4/5

As with every Hitchcock, this movie is suspenseful and tense from its start to its end. The concept of the plot was clever and its execution nearly flawless. Some of the shots were nicely composed and the camera movement was informative and unobtrusive. The music worked exceptionally well to both enhance the tension and set the mood. Unfortunately, I thought that the plot itself was a bit weak and a bit watery; it meandered and drifted with no real purpose or ending in sight. The conclusion took much too long and it seemed a bit of a stretch. The acting by the American was really over-the-top and quite painful to watch. Grace Kelly, on the other hand, was incredible. Quite a good movie, but Hitchcock has done much much better.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0046912/

Rear Window (1954)

5/5

Jimmy Stewart plays a man in a wheelchair watching the goings-on of his neighbors through his rear window. Each vignette is so rich in character development that they could be the centerpoint of any movie in their own right, but since Hitchcock is a master of suspense, he focuses on the murder mystery. Yet how do you generate suspense when the main character is handicapped, unable to interact with or affect what he sees?

As every critique and analysis points out, Stewart's character represents us, the moviegoing audience, partaking in our voyeuristic delight. So it is particularly shocking when the murder suspect confronts him and asks, "What do you want from me? Your friend, the girl, could have turned me in. Why didn't she? What is it you want?" What do I want in a Hitchcock movie? I want suspense, not airtight logic. That is what Hitchcock knows how to provide and that is exactly what he gives us.

Hitchcock is a master of camera movement and framing. He tells stories by what we see and do not see, but more importantly how we see. His camera sweeps the back courtyard, traveling to and fro, stopping and starting, taking interest in lives and losing that interest, exactly as our eyes would investigate. He never withholds information that we would naturally be curious about; he shows us all we want to see and his characters verbalize what's on our minds right as we're thinking it. The suspense comes from us, always thinking there is a trick he will play on us. And that is Hitchcock's trick: our own doubt.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0047396/