1951
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
This is another movie that everyone has seen or at least heard about. Nothing like another homoerotic Hitchcock!
This film centers on two men who meet on a train (spoiler!). They talk about how perfect it would be if a stranger killed another stranger's enemies and vice versa, because the crimes would be really hard to trace. When I first heard about this film, I thought the two characters would then follow through on this plan. However, it is a bit darker than that. Robert Walker is a psycho and wants to implement this plan while Farley Granger laughs it off. However, when Walker, ahem, plays his part, he wants Granger to play his. Oh and they may be lovers. Who knows?
If there is one thing Hitchcock is good at, it is playing out our worst nightmares. Whether it be being accused of a crime we didn't commit or having a total stranger stalk you, he nails it (or if your worst nightmare is all of the birds turning against us, he has a movie for that too).
This is a great movie; just fantastic and interesting from start to finish. A truly original storyline in the most capable of hands.
RATING: *****
Interesting Facts:
HITCHCOCK RADAR: Early in the film, getting on the train.
Raymond Chandler was absurdly rude to Hitchcock during filming.
Last feature film of Robert Walker.
robert Walker reminded me of Bill Murray. Had this movie been remade in the eighties he would have played the part. Garnger may be a bit wooden, but Walker was awesome.
ReplyDeleteThis might sneak into my all-time top-three favourites, behind Brazil and the first two Godfathers (which I choose to count as a single entry, maths fans)
ReplyDeleteAgreed TSorensen. I loved Granger in Rope but he was just okay in this. Wow, Dessie you're worse than the Book! Actually, I think the Book includes them as separate entries:P
ReplyDeleteI found Granger very wooden in both this and Rope and never understood why a stickler for detail like Hitchcock cast him twice. That said, I thought he got away with it better here where the character and his reactions were supposed to be so straightforward.
ReplyDeleteI dimly recall us discussing this elsewhere, but it is very unsatisfactory the way the book groups these films together. It's hard to know where to draw the line; where the films were always intended as divided parts of one longer narrative like Lord of the Rings or Dr Mabuse? Where sequels were of a similar enough quality that each would have been worthy of entry and similar written description anyway?
To be honest, I'd split The Godfathers if I were the book editor. Against popular opinion, I actually reckon the first is slightly better (it's a more rounded story). But if making a personal top-three/ten/fifty in order then it feels silly to make one of them number two and the other, say, number thirteen.
I'm wittering now, which is nothing new but also demonstrates the complexity of the problem.