ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 13 November 2009)

This movie might not be up to Hitchcock's usual high standards but it still is a great movie obviously.

Thing that prevents this movie from truly being a classic is its story, that just isn't always a likely one. The story just isn't always very logic or convincing, though in its key aspects and its essence it still features a good story that provides the movie with plenty of thriller moments and twists, like you would expect from an Hitchcock movie.

There are a couple of suspenseful moments but even those moments fall a bit short, compared to some of the other stuff Hitchcock has provided us with throughout his career. It's only the ending that is truly fully Hitchcock worthy and ensures that the movie doesn't end dull. It's also a movie that uses a couple of new and daring techniques, fore Hitchcock always had been an innovative and creative director during his career.

It's also not the Hitchcock movie with the most impressive cast. Farley Granger already didn't convinced me much with his acting skills in the earlier Hitchcock movie "Rope" and he doesn't do much better with this movie. He is just not the type of actor you would like to have as your leading man, though Hitchcock must have obviously seen something in him. Robert Walker is much better in this movie and this is the role he would always be remembered for. It also was one of his last, before his early death in the same year as the release of this movie.

Compared to other genre movies it's still more than a great movie but compared to Hitchcock usual high standards this movie is just not on my list as an Hitchcock classic, despite having a reputation as such.

8/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top