The ALFRED HITCHCOCK Thread

[flickchick85]

And the countdown continues...

27. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)

Ah yes, the story Hitchcock thought was so nice, he made it twice. Before the Hollywood revamp he did of his own film 20 years later, this was already one his stronger works from his British period. This version’s probably most notable for being the English language debut of Peter Lorre – fresh after making a splash in one of my favorite films of all-time, Fritz Lang’s M – and he certainly makes a strong impression as the villain of this tale. The plot is pretty much the same as his more famous Hollywood version: A family is on holiday where they befriend a mysterious Frenchman who is murdered soon after, but not before passing along some cryptic info. Their child is subsequently kidnapped (in this one it’s a daughter instead of a son as in the later one), drawing them into a sinister plot as they embark on a quest to get her back. This version of the story is the shorter, simpler one, with not quite as much character as the remake, but it’s still got some great sequences, unexpected dark humor, and most importantly, that killer Royal Albert Hall assassination sequence that would serve as the inspiration for many copycats in the decades to come, from Get Smart to Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. Not quite as memorable as its more star-studded, flashier successor, this is still a great flick.

26. Murder! (1930)

One of his earliest talkies, this film was a huge, huge step up from the film that came right before it, Juno and the Paycock. This is Hitchcock getting back to the type of movie he actually likes to make, and it shows. Like another film in this batch, this is a film set against the backdrop of the stage and involves characters who are actors themselves, putting on performances at times. The plot kicks off with a woman found in a dissociative state near a dead body, and she is then arrested and put on trial for the murder. She is found guilty despite one juror having doubts (though he caved to peer pressure for the guilty vote), and that juror, an actor named Sir John, decides to investigate the murder himself (using his acting skills, of course!) and prove his doubts to be well-founded before the innocent girl is executed. Lots of clever visual storytelling at work here, and you can tell Hitchcock was still toying with this new tool that was the innovation of sound, as there’s an interesting part where Sir John’s inner-monologue plays over a scene in a rather unusual way.

25. To Catch a Thief (1955)

This film is often heralded as one of Hitchcock’s great classics, often on those Hitchcock "top 10" lists, and as singular proof that he was more than just the “Master of Suspense.” And while I do think it is pretty great, I also think he proved himself on that front well before this, and don’t put this on quite as high a pedestal as most others seem to. This is the easiest, breeziest film of Hitchcock’s popular Hollywood period, and is just fun to watch from start to finish. Cary Grant stars as a retired, notorious jewel thief who becomes a suspect in a series of copycat crimes. He’s then recruited by an insurance agent to entrap the real thief in a scheme that involves him pretending to scope out a wealthy father/daughter duo as if he’s planning a job. Grace Kelly plays the daughter, and of course, romance ensues between her and Grant. This film is part caper, mostly rom-com, and is carried by the gorgeous, lush cinematography of the French Riviera, and the chemistry and charisma of its A-List stars.

24. Young and Innocent (1937)

One of the better installments of his British era, this one is classic Hitchcock. It follows The 39 Steps in the “wrong man accused goes on the run with a love interest” motif that he just loved to keep going back to. A movie star is murdered, and when it’s discovered that the guy who found the body on a beach not only knew her, but is also named in her will, he becomes the prime suspect. He escapes custody and takes the police chief’s daughter with him on a quest to prove his innocence. This one’s not a whodunit – in fact, it basically tells us who the murderer is in the first scene. The suspense here is about when and how that individual will turn up again in the film, and the way that reveal happens is a rather stunning little sequence that’s one of the more iconic of Hitch’s early career. Dated particularly by the unfortunate use of blackface in a prominent way, this one’s still a ripping good yarn.

23. Stage Fright (1950)

This film was a bit of a homecoming for Hitchcock, as it was his first British film set in Britain since he left for Hollywood a decade before. You can tell he’s having fun with it too. Jane Wyman stars as Eve, a struggling actress who’s just been tasked by her fellow actor friend Jonathan to help him, after he reveals he’s been having a secret affair with his co-star, the glamorous stage star Charlotte (Marlene Dietrich), who just "accidentally" killed her husband and had her lover Jonathan help cover it up. Jonathan was seen by the maid and is now on the run, being fingered for the murder of Charlotte’s husband. Eve, who just so happens to be in love with Jonathan and believes Charlotte to be intentionally pinning the murder on him, agrees to help him, eventually by going undercover as a new maid for Charlotte to try to prove her guilt, and under Charlotte’s employ she learns a whole lot more than she bargained for. To complicate things even further, Eve plays on the affections shown to her by a detective in order to get inside info on the investigation, only to start falling for him for real. What I love about this film is that there’s something almost meta about it – you can tell that Hitchcock knows exactly how over-the-top and ridiculous this tangled soap opera web of a plot is, and as such, he goes as theatrical as possible with the way he presents it. It’s a story about a bunch of actors, and every main character in this story is putting on a performance at some point. This is a great example of just how in-tune Hitchcock is with what the audience is thinking at any given moment. He even has Eve’s father state outright, after she tries to get him to play a part in her scheme, “a part in this melodramatic play, you mean?” There’s a very meta episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer I love called “The Zeppo,” where we get one of that show’s usual dramatic, world-ending plots as seen through the perspective of the “useless” supporting character who’s always catching things out of context, so it’s the writers’ way of showing us they know what any episode of Buffy must look like to the uninitiated – dramatic, overwrought, and yeah, a little silly. This film reminded me of that, because it often feels like a Hitchcock film that knows it’s a Hitchcock film, and what we’re expecting from it. For example, Hitch knows that WE know, as soon as Marlene Deitrich vamps into frame for the first time at Jonathan’s apartment, that she’s gonna eat this poor lovesick fool alive, and Hitchcock uses that expectation to his advantage. He also knows we can tell by the lighting when something sinister is afoot and somebody’s about to get killed, and he goes another way. I just think it’s a damn shame this was the only time Dietrich worked with Hitchcock, because she had a hell of a presence, and he used it to great effect here.

Next up, we've got one of his most famous all-time classics people are probably gonna be surprised I ranked so low; the pinnacle of his silent film career; and 3 of his early Hollywood works, one of which I'd consider to be one of his most underrated gems considering I'd never even heard of it before this little venture.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Yeh !!!! Flick's back with more reviews , *sinks in to read with a cuppa*

 

[ComicChick]

 

[flickchick85]

We're approaching the top 10 soon, and FYI, I'm thinking I'll probably do just one more batch of 5 after this, before the batches get smaller as I want each film to get more of a spotlight. Anyhoo...

22.) The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

The most memorable of his silent films, this one is essentially the harbinger of all the things Hitchcock would become known for. It’s got stylish visuals, paranoia and suspense to spare, serial murders and a “wrong man accused” plot, complete with a portion where the accused goes on the run with a love interest. There’s a serial killer on the loose dubbed “The Avenger,” who’s essentially a Jack the Ripper type, preying on young blonde women. When a lodger comes to rent a room in the Buntings’ boarding house, it’s noted that he bears a resemblance to descriptions of The Avenger, which becomes more disconcerting when their young blonde daughter Daisy strikes up a flirtation with him and the two begin to bond. Complicating matters further, Daisy has a boyfriend who just so happens to be a policeman investigating the Avenger case. The lodger’s behavior becomes more and more suspicious as the film goes on, but of course nothing is as it seems. There’s never really a dull moment in this film, and the experience is enhanced by the visuals, as Hitch was clearly inspired by recent German Expressionist films, so the dramatic, foggy, claustrophobic cinematography makes for quite an eerie atmosphere.

21.) Suspicion (1941)

I’ve gotta be honest - I’m not a fan of Joan Fontaine as a Hitchcock heroine. She’s not a bad actress, but she’s just so…wan, with a perpetual worried look on her face at any given moment. Even when she’s supposed to be lovesick, she looks scared or like she might cry! She’s just one of the least dynamic or interesting heroines of Hitchcock’s Hollywood career to me. The irony here of course being that she’s the only actress to win an Oscar for a Hitchcock film, and that film and performance is Suspicion. Those feelings on Fontaine aside, this is a pretty great film. Fontaine plays Lina, who after a whirlwind romance with Cary Grant’s Johnny, elopes with him (much to the disapproval of her father) and quickly discovers she probably should’ve gotten to know him a little better before marrying him. Turns out Johnny’s up to his ears in gambling debt, probably married her for her father’s money, may have killed someone, and may or not be planning to kill her next. Oops. Of course, this kind of paranoia is what Hitchcock revels in, and boy does he ever here. He milks that tension and paranoia for all its worth. Another huge part of why this film works is Cary Grant. This film gives him a chance to be both charming and shady, and he manages to excel at both. He does so well in fact, that it’s actually a little disappointing when, well, (spoiler alert!) things don’t quite play out the way Lina had feared. Still, up until that rather anti-climactic ending, this is quite the effective psychological thriller.

20.) Saboteur (1942)

This film is almost a pseudo-Hollywood remake of The 39 Steps, not so much in plot specifics, but in concept and spirit. Which kind of automatically means it’s entertaining as hell. Robert Cummings plays a worker at an aircraft factory named Barry, who witnesses the place being burned down by a saboteur who goes by the name of Fry. Barry’s friend is killed in the blaze, and when he tries to tell the authorities about Fry and they discover no record of anyone having worked there with that name, Barry becomes the prime suspect and goes on the run. Of course, just like in The 39 Steps, he eventually drags along a love interest (this time a model played by Priscilla Lane) who at first wants nothing more than to turn him in, but gradually comes around to the idea of his innocence. What this film has that The 39 Steps doesn’t is this sense of “rah rah America!” patriotism running through it. Hell, the big climactic set-piece - whis is fantastic, by the way – is set atop the Statue of Liberty herself. This brand of patriotism probably wouldn’t fly so well today, but back in WWII, when the lines of good and evil seemed more clearly drawn, it could actually qualify as charming. And “charming” pretty much sums up this film in general. Cummings and Lane have good chemistry, and the filmmaking here is top-notch. There’s no new territory here for Hitchcock; it’s just a case of a masterful filmmaker doing one of the things he does best.

19.) Foreign Correspondent (1940)

Back when I started this countdown and I mentioned how I was glad I did this because Hitch has some really underrated gems I’d never even heard of, this was the first film in my mind as I said that. This is a Hitchcock espionage adventure in the vein of North By Northwest, and it’s almost as fun as that one, by my estimation. It’s a film that was brazenly current at the time, set only a year before, right on the eve of World War II breaking out. It follows a crime reporter, excellently played by Joel McCrea, who gets recruited as the new foreign correspondent for a New York newspaper. There’s a whole class divide/prejudice thing going on between mere “reporters” and elitist foreign correspondents (which was probably a thing at the time?), so for some reason this development is treated like a batboy getting added to the starting line-up, and his editor tells him that his name, John Jones, is too boring for a foreign correspondent, so he gets a new name – Huntley Haverstock. Now that’s a name! Anyway, he’s chosen because his editor is getting no new information from his current foreign correspondents about the political tensions escalating in Europe and feels maybe they’ve gotten too complacent with their usual protocols and roadblocks, so he figures a reporter will have no such inhibitions and will do whatever he has to do to get the story. And he does. “Haverstock” manages to get close enough to a key Dutch diplomat that the others have failed to get in contact with, only to witness that diplomat get assassinated right in front of him. After pursuing the assailant himself, he sets out to solve what’s gradually unveiled to be a vast conspiracy, with the help of a fellow reporter and the daughter of another political leader. This movie features some great standout set-pieces, including an excellent cat-and-mouse bit on a windmill farm, and one of hell of an impressive plane crash sequence, shown from the POV’s of the passengers and the pilots in the cockpit. It also has, for my money, one of Hitchcock’s best closing scenes, where we see Jones - once a happy-go-lucky irreverent reporter, now forever changed by his experiences – deliver a live, impassioned speech in London over radio directed to his American compatriots, beseeching them to get over their apathy toward the happenings in Europe, as London is being bombed above him. Hitchcock being a Brit himself, it’s hard not to imagine these pleas were actually coming straight from the filmmaker, making a desperate plea to his American audiences the only way he knew how.

18.) The Birds (1963)

Yeah, yeah, this is one of Hitchcock’s most beloved and iconic signature films, so how could it not at least crack the top 10? Well first I guess I should preface my explanation by saying yes, this movie is great. Frankly any movie in the top 25 of my list would qualify as “great” in my eyes. This is Hitchcock’s “monster movie” and what an effective one it is. It pretty much does for birds what Jaws did for the ocean. That is, almost everyone who sees this movie is gonna develop at least a little bit of apprehension next time they find themselves near a random, large congregation of birds. The story’s simple enough, and features a Psycho-esque shift as it starts out as one type of movie (a romantic soap opera, basically) and then birds start attacking and it becomes something else entirely. The suspense is masterful and the terror the characters face is visceral (unsurprising since he was having real birds thrown at poor Tippi Hedren at one point). So why don’t I rank it higher? Well, something I observed during my Hitchcock odyssey is that at some point when Hitchcock reached peak popularity, his films seemed to become more about him than their stories/characters. That is, his style, his technique, his psychology, his ego. He knew what the audience wanted from him and he doubled down on it. Sometimes this worked to absolutely brilliant effect, like in Vertigo, but The Birds is one of those that seems to care more about that than in delivering any characters or story with substance. Which is fine – it’s a monster movie, after all – but the reason I find myself preferring the films of his early Hollywood period (which I’d consider to be from about 1940 to 1954 with Rear Window) over these of his most popular Hollywood period is because back in those earlier days, all the talent, ingenuity, technique, psychological complexities we expect from him were there; they were just secondary - in service of great stories and characters. They weren’t center stage as they were in his most popular hits, and I kind of prefer them that way. Still, The Birds is one of the great thrillers of the era, no doubt about that.

Next up, Hitch experiments with the "chamber piece," a late great surprise, one of his pre-Hollywood highlights, an epic remake and a smashing Hollywood debut.

 

[Dr.]

18.) The Birds (1963)

But the Freudians had a field day with the Oedipal implications of The Birds. It was quite apparent that Hedren (the lover) and Tandy (the assertive mother) bore a marked physical resemblance. Thus, the bird attacks represented a psychic manifestation of jealousy. So by the end - with Hedren’s beauty and sexual allure satisfactorily curbed…

… - there was no longer a threat to the mother/son relationship. Order restored.

 

[Dark Raven]

We're approaching the top 10 soon, and FYI, I'm thinking I'll probably do just one more batch of 5 after this, before the batches get smaller as I want each film to get more of a spotlight. Anyhoo...

22.) The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

The most memorable of his silent films, this one is essentially the harbinger of all the things Hitchcock would become known for. It’s got stylish visuals, paranoia and suspense to spare, serial murders and a “wrong man accused” plot, complete with a portion where the accused goes on the run with a love interest. There’s a serial killer on the loose dubbed “The Avenger,” who’s essentially a Jack the Ripper type, preying on young blonde women. When a lodger comes to rent a room in the Buntings’ boarding house, it’s noted that he bears a resemblance to descriptions of The Avenger, which becomes more disconcerting when their young blonde daughter strikes up a flirtation with him and the two begin to bond. Complicating matters further, Daisy has a boyfriend who just so happens to be a policeman investigating the Avenger case. The lodger’s behavior becomes more and more suspicious as the film goes on, but of course nothing is as it seems. There’s never really a dull moment in this film, and the experience is enhanced by the visuals, as Hitch was clearly inspired by recent German Expressionist films, so the dramatic, foggy, claustrophobic cinematography makes for quite an eerie atmosphere.

21.) Suspicion (1941)

I’ve gotta be honest - I’m not a fan of Joan Fontaine as a Hitchcock heroine. She’s not a bad actress, but she’s just so…wan, with a perpetual worried look on her face at any given moment. Even when she’s supposed to be lovesick, she looks scared or like she might cry! She’s just one of the least dynamic or interesting heroines of Hitchcock’s Hollywood career to me. The irony here of course being that she’s the only actress to win an Oscar for a Hitchcock film, and that film and performance is Suspicion. Those feelings on Fontaine aside, this is a pretty great film. Fontaine plays Lina, who after a whirlwind romance with Cary Grant’s Johnny, elopes with him (much to the disapproval of her father) and quickly discovers she probably should’ve gotten to know him a little better before marrying him. Turns out Johnny’s up to his ears in gambling debt, probably married her for her father’s money, may have killed someone, and may or not be planning to kill her next. Oops. Of course, this kind of paranoia is what Hitchcock revels in, and boy does he ever here. He milks that tension and paranoia for all its worth. Another huge part of why this film works is Cary Grant. This film gives him a chance to be both charming and shady, and he manages to excel at both. He does so well in fact, that it’s actually a little disappointing when, well, (spoiler alert!) things don’t quite play out the way Lina had feared. Still, up until that rather anti-climactic ending, this is quite the effective psychological thriller.

20.) Saboteur (1942)

This film is almost a pseudo-Hollywood remake of The 39 Steps, not so much in plot specifics, but in concept and spirit. Which kind of automatically means it’s entertaining as hell. Robert Cummings plays a worker at an aircraft factory named Barry, who witnesses the place being burned down by a saboteur who goes by the name of Fry. Barry’s friend is killed in the blaze, and when he tries to tell the authorities about Fry and they discover no record of anyone having worked there with that name, Barry becomes the prime suspect and goes on the run. Of course, just like in The 39 Steps, he eventually drags along a love interest (this time a model played by Priscilla Lane) who at first wants nothing more than to turn him in, but gradually comes around to the idea of his innocence. What this film has that The 39 Steps doesn’t is this sense of “rah rah America!” patriotism running through it. Hell, the big climactic set-piece - whis is fantastic, by the way – is set atop the Statue of Liberty herself. This brand of patriotism probably wouldn’t fly so well today, but back in WWII, when the lines of good and evil seemed more clearly drawn, it could actually qualify as charming. And “charming” pretty much sums up this film in general. Cummings and Lane have good chemistry, and the filmmaking here is top-notch. There’s no new territory here for Hitchcock; it’s just a case of a masterful filmmaker doing one of the things he does best.

19.) Foreign Correspondent (1940)

Back when I started this countdown and I mentioned how I was glad I did this because Hitch has some really underrated gems I’d never even heard of, this was the first film in my mind as I said that. This is a Hitchcock espionage adventure in the vein of North By Northwest, and it’s almost as fun as that one, by my estimation. It’s a film that was brazenly current at the time, set only a year before, right on the eve of World War II breaking out. It follows a crime reporter, excellently played by Joel McCrea, who gets recruited as the new foreign correspondent for a New York newspaper. There’s a whole class divide/prejudice thing going on between mere “reporters” and elitist foreign correspondents (which was probably a thing at the time?), so for some reason this development is treated like a batboy getting added to the starting line-up, and his editor tells him that his name, John Jones, is too boring for a foreign correspondent, so he gets a new name – Huntley Haverstock. Now that’s a name! Anyway, he’s chosen because his editor is getting no new information from his current foreign correspondents about the political tensions escalating in Europe and feels maybe they’ve gotten too complacent with their usual protocols and roadblocks, so he figures a reporter will have no such inhibitions and will do whatever he has to do to get the story. And he does. “Haverstock” manages to get close enough to a key Dutch diplomat that the others have failed to get in contact with, only to witness that diplomat get assassinated right in front of him. After pursuing the assailant himself, he sets out to solve what’s gradually unveiled to be a vast conspiracy, with the help of a fellow reporter and the daughter of another political leader. This movie features some great standout set-pieces, including an excellent cat-and-mouse bit on a windmill farm, and one of hell of an impressive plane crash sequence, shown from the POV’s of the passengers and the pilots in the cockpit. It also has, for my money, one of Hitchcock’s best closing scenes, where we see Jones - once a happy-go-lucky irreverent reporter, now forever changed by his experiences – deliver a live, impassioned speech in London over radio directed to his American compatriots, beseeching them to get over their apathy toward the happenings in Europe, as London is being bombed above him. Hitchcock being a Brit himself, it’s hard not to imagine these pleas were actually coming straight from the filmmaker, making a desperate plea to his American audiences the only way he knew how.

18.) The Birds (1963)

Yeah, yeah, this is one of Hitchcock’s most beloved and iconic signature films, so how could it not at least crack the top 10? Well first I guess I should preface my explanation by saying yes, this movie is great. Frankly any movie in the top 25 of my list would qualify as “great” in my eyes. This is Hitchcock’s “monster movie” and what an effective one it is. It pretty much does for birds what Jaws did for the ocean. That is, almost everyone who sees this movie is gonna develop at least a little bit of apprehension next time they find themselves near a random, large congregation of birds. The story’s simple enough, and features a Psycho-esque shift as it starts out as one type of movie (a romantic soap opera, basically) and then birds start attacking and it becomes something else entirely. The suspense is masterful and the terror the characters face is visceral (unsurprising since he was having real birds thrown at poor Tippi Hedren at one point). So why don’t I rank it higher? Well, something I observed during my Hitchcock odyssey is that at some point when Hitchcock reached peak popularity, his films seemed to become more about him than their stories/characters. That is, his style, his technique, his psychology, his ego. He knew what the audience wanted from him and he doubled down on it. Sometimes this worked to absolutely brilliant effect, like in Vertigo, but The Birds is one of those that seems to care more about that than in delivering any characters or story with substance. Which is fine – it’s a monster movie, after all – but the reason I find myself preferring the films of his early Hollywood period (which I’d consider to be from about 1940 to 1954 with Rear Window) over these of his most popular Hollywood period is because back in those earlier days, all the talent, ingenuity, technique, psychological complexities we expect from him were there; they were just secondary - in service of great stories and characters. They weren’t center stage as they were in his most popular hits, and I kind of prefer them that way. Still, The Birds is one of the great thrillers of the era, no doubt about that.

Next up, Hitch experiments with the "chamber piece," a late great surprise, one of his pre-Hollywood highlights, an epic remake and a smashing Hollywood debut.

Nice to see you have Saboteur quite high up. I don't know if I'd really call it a remake of the 39 Steps as such. Yes there are similarities, but it also feels like a prototype of North By Northwest. Even the ending of it with the fight on top of the Statue of Liberty seems like a precursor to Hitchcock's penchant for using famous monuments as action set pieces such as the chase across Mount Rushmore.

Incidentally, the 1978 remake of the 39 Steps, entitled "The Thirty-Nine Steps" starring Robert Powell has much more of a Hitchcock ending than Hitchcock's actual 39 Steps. He's hanging off the clock hands of Big Ben, which is similar to Saboteur with the Statue of Liberty.

I thought "To Catch A Thief" might be higher up. Same with "Marnie".

"Torn Curtain" might have been more believable if it had James Stewart as the professor rather than Paul Newman. Still, I enjoy the film.

I can see though that the real classics are likely to be in your Top 20, and rightly so.

It would've been great if Hitchcock did do a Bond film. The end of "From Russia With Love" seems a bit inspired by North by Northwest.

 

[flickchick85]

But the Freudians had a field day with the Oedipal implications of The Birds. It was quite apparent that Hedren (the lover) and Tandy (the assertive mother) bore a marked physical resemblance. Thus, the bird attacks represented a psychic manifestation of jealousy. So by the end - with Hedren’s beauty and sexual allure satisfactorily curbed…

… - there was no longer a threat to the mother/son relationship. Order restored.

Oh my!

Nice to see you have Saboteur quite high up. I don't know if I'd really call it a remake of the 39 Steps as such. Yes there are similarities, but it also feels like a prototype of North By Northwest. Even the ending of it with the fight on top of the Statue of Liberty seems like a precursor to Hitchcock's penchant for using famous monuments as action set pieces such as the chase across Mount Rushmore.

Funny, I consider them both prototypes for North by Northwest. Saboteur just being another step in that direction. Or if you look at it another way, it could be seen as a 39 Steps/North by Northwest hybrid...though not quite as strong as either.

Incidentally, the 1978 remake of the 39 Steps, entitled "The Thirty-Nine Steps" starring Robert Powell has much more of a Hitchcock ending than Hitchcock's actual 39 Steps. He's hanging off the clock hands of Big Ben, which is similar to Saboteur with the Statue of Liberty.

Huh, I didn't even know that remake existed. Will have to check that one out.

I thought "To Catch A Thief" might be higher up. Same with "Marnie".

"Torn Curtain" might have been more believable if it had James Stewart as the professor rather than Paul Newman. Still, I enjoy the film.

I can see though that the real classics are likely to be in your Top 20, and rightly so.

It would've been great if Hitchcock did do a Bond film. The end of "From Russia With Love" seems a bit inspired by North by Northwest.

Agreed about James Stewart - never thought about that but he would've been better casting there. Would've LOVED to see a Hitchcock Bond film.

 

[moviedoors]

He milks that tension and paranoia for all its worth.

I see what you did there.

 

[Mandon Knight]

A Hitchcock Bond ?

 

[flickchick85]

I see what you did there.

 

[Dark Raven]

Oh my!


Funny, I consider them both prototypes for North by Northwest. Saboteur just being another step in that direction. Or if you look at it another way, it could be seen as a 39 Steps/North by Northwest hybrid...though not quite as strong as either.


Huh, I didn't even know that remake existed. Will have to check that one out.


Agreed about James Stewart - never thought about that but he would've been better casting there. Would've LOVED to see a Hitchcock Bond film.

Apparently Hitchcock didn't like the casting of Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. They were the studio's choice not his, because they wanted famous actors. He particularly didn't get on with Newman, who kept questioning everything.

Hitchcock wanted Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint, but Grant was planning to retire.

 

[scarlet-witch]

I watched Rear Window for the first time recently and that's now my favorite Hitchcock, which was originally Psycho. It's just captivating from start to finish.

I admit I have a long way to go through his filmography but I can't imagine anything unseating this now.

 

[Dark Raven]

I watched Rear Window for the first time recently and that's now my favorite Hitchcock, which was originally Psycho. It's just captivating from start to finish.

I admit I have a long way to go through his filmography but I can't imagine anything unseating this now.

Well Hitchcock does several genres, so you'll probably end up with more than one favourite to account for that.

His action thrillers are fantastic and as good if not better than anything out at the moment.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I watched Rear Window for the first time recently and that's now my favorite Hitchcock, which was originally Psycho. It's just captivating from start to finish.

I admit I have a long way to go through his filmography but I can't imagine anything unseating this now.

See what you think about Vertigo when you get there Happy viewing SW

 

[scarlet-witch]

See what you think about Vertigo when you get there Happy viewing SW

I've seen Vertigo, I liked it, but it was just okay.

I suppose for context I've seen the following:
Psycho
Vertigo
Rear Window
North by Northwest
The Birds
Marnie

Still a very long way to go.

 

[flickchick85]

Just got back from my Xmas vacation this weekend, which means, time to get back to the countdown!

17.) Sabotage (1936)

An espionage film based on a book called Secret Agent, this is not Hitchcock’s film Secret Agent from the same year. Not confusing at all! In all seriousness, though, the film itself really isn’t. In fact, I think a part of what makes this film great to me is its simplicity. Oskar Homolka stars as Karl Verloc, a member of a terrorist organization of unspecified origin (and vague motivations), who are plotting a series of bombings in London. Karl and his wife run a movie theater, and Mrs. Verloc is befriended by Scotland Yard Detective Ted Spencer, who’s undercover investigating Karl’s involvement in the plot. Covers are blown, lives are destroyed, all in good Hitchcockian fun. What sets this film apart from Hitch’s other espionage thrillers is that it’s more of an emotional drama than anything else. He’s not really interested in the terrorists or their endgame, as they are kept as vague as possible – he’s interested in what Karl’s choices do to his family. A lot of what we see is Mrs. Verloc’s perspective, as the people around her turn out to be not what they seem, and her world goes down a far more tragic path than she could have envisioned. But this is also one of those early films where Hitchcock was already building his rep as the Master of Suspense. Not only is there a great deal of suspense in the cat-and-mouse dynamic between Ted and Karl, but the most famous sequence of the film involves Mrs. Verloc’s young brother Stevie, delivering a package that we the audience know contains a time-sensitive bomb. The way Hitchcock draws out the suspense of this scenario by giving Stevie various obstacles to delay his journey is, well, masterful.

16.) Lifeboat (1944)

This was the first time Hitchcock experimented with a chamber piece, which he’d later revisit with movies like Rope and Rear Window, and with a story by John Steinbeck, no less. A simple story about a group of survivors of a German U-boat attack, all from different classes and backgrounds, it manages to be thoroughly entertaining and engrossing all the way though. It doesn’t achieve this using much of Hitchcock’s trademark fancy camerawork, nor does it utilize any background music, but instead it’s mostly just carried by the personalities on screen, lead by a fantastic Tallulah Bankhead (in an Oscar-nominated role) as a cool and sophisticated photo-journalist. There are a couple of low-key twists involving the passengers, but ultimately this is really a pretty straight-forward character piece and survival tale that’s just really, really well done. Despite the limited setting, far more limited than his more famous chamber pieces, the visuals never grow tired, and the moments never grow dull.

15.) Frenzy (1972)

Hitchcock’s long-standing antagonist in Hollywood filmmaking, the Production Code (“moral guidelines” governing Hollywood censorship from 1930 onward), was finally abandoned by the industry in 1968. I feel like this film could be his personal celebration of its demise. There’s a serial killer on the loose who’s raping women and strangling them with neckties. Dick Blaney, played by Jon Finch, is accused of the crimes after his ex-wife becomes one of the victims shortly after he visits her. The movie tells us early on that Dick’s friend Bob Rusk is the real killer, and Rusk is happy to let his friend take the fall. Hitchcock revels in his freedom from the Production Code here, as this is easily his most graphic film. It features explicit nudity for the first time in one of his films (and no, I’ve never counted Psycho on that front), and the violence is shot in a way where things that would have been implied in previous Hitchcock films are now shown outright. One can certainly argue that this removes part of the “magic” from his technique and what made him great in the first place, but I wouldn’t necessarily agree. I wouldn’t agree because there are still some classic Hitchcockian scenes in this film, one of which still employs that restraint we had come to expect from him. It’s a scene where Rusk brings his latest victim to his apartment, and instead of following them in, the camera backs away, and drifts back out to the street, first in silence, then the regular street noises take over. All while the viewer is left to imagine what’s happening in the upstairs apartment. It’s as chilling as anything Hitchcock’s ever done, and in a way, that restraint feels even more notable in a film that’s not forced to employ it for every scene of graphic violence. The film features not just his old favorite “wrong man accused” theme but for a change, we also spend a great deal of time with the killer and getting in his head a bit, so it’s like a two-for-one in terms of favorite Hitchcock tropes. So not only is this film an effectively entertaining thriller, but I also think it makes for a fascinating case study – it’s Hitchcock doing the type of material he knows best, but as a modern filmmaker, free to show - or not show - what he wants when he wants, and I just think it’s a damn shame this is the only time we ever really got to see that.

14.) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

This film certainly makes a compelling case for the argument that the only person who can successfully remake Hitchcock is, well, Hitchcock. I know it’s an endless ongoing debate as to which version of this film is superior, but this is one rare instance where my money’s on the remake. Keeping the story pretty close to his 1934 original, this one casts James Stewart and Doris Day as the couple on holiday with their son (changed from the daughter in the original) who unwittingly get caught up in an espionage scheme which leads to their kid being kidnapped. So yes, the plot is basically the same, but the execution of it really is quite different. The scenes are totally different, the character dynamics are much more fleshed out, the visuals are flashier and the set-pieces are bigger. So essentially, this is a big, glossy Hollywood translation. And yes bigger and glossier hardly equals “better,” and in fact, it probably rarely does…but, considering we’re talking about an international intrigue tale with naturally theatrical set-pieces, I’d say bigger and glossier is just what the doctor ordered to enhance that experience. Despite the villain(s) not being as memorable as Peter Lorre, there’s more nuance to the characters and lead performances, more suspense, more plot complications, more colorful details in the settings…there’s just more to chew on in this version of the film in general. In comparison, the original feels to me like a brilliant first sketch – the meaner, tighter, most streamlined version with the very basic skeleton of the story in place - while this one feels like the final, fully-realized oil painting. A lot of people prefer artists’ sketches over the polished final products, and there’s certainly a great deal of appeal to be found in both.

13.) Rebecca (1940)

Here’s a movie ripped right from the nightmares of every woman who ever married a widower. Joan Fontaine stars as a shy, naïve young woman who falls in love with Laurence Olivier’s Maxim de Winter, whose first wife Rebecca is recently deceased. Fontaine’s character quickly becomes the 2nd Mrs. de Winter, and as we never learned her first name, that’s what she becomes known as for the rest of the film. Which is appropriate, considering her driving conflict in the film is with the formidable shadow of the 1st Mrs. de Winter and the mystique surrounding her. Rebecca was Hitchcock’s Hollywood debut, and it obviously made quite an impression, considering it won the Oscar for Best Picture, his only film to ever to do so. It’s easy to see why it made such an impression – it has that great Hitchcock panache, but the story is less typical Hitchcock, more Hollywood. It’s got psychological thriller elements, yes, but it’s primarily a lavish, gothic romance with dark undertones, so it feels like a classical Hollywood film, but with an edge! Those attributes I previously mentioned that I dislike about Joan Fontaine as a Hitchcock heroine I must admit actually work fairly well for this character. Her Mrs. de Winter is meant to be a bit wan and naïve, if only to highlight how intimidating the ghost of Rebecca can be. Doesn’t help that Maxim’s scary housekeeper (a memorable Judith Anderson) remains obsessed with Rebecca. The plot here also goes to some unexpected places. Primarily though, I think this film ranks so highly for me because it just…stands out. The Hitchcockian elements make it stand out from typical Hollywood fare, and the more Hollywood-esque story makes it stand out from typical Hitchcock fare. It’s got this timeless, dreamlike quality to it. Netflix is currently remaking this film with Armie Hammer and Lily James as the leads, and considering my stance on Fontaine, I’ll probably see James as an upgrade, but going from Sir Laurence Olivier to Armie Hammer and from Hitch in the director’s chair to Ben Wheatley? Yeah, good luck, fellas. You’re gonna need it.

This was the last batch of 5 I'll be doing. The next batch will just be two films to get us down to the top 10 - one pre-Hollywood classic, and one from his prime era, which certain Oscar-winning Hollywood children should be ashamed of themselves for ever attempting to remake.

 

[ComicChick]

i've heard of Lifeboat, but i never realized it was a Hitchcock film. i own quite a few of the movies on your list, but i've yet to open them, let alone watch them.
i will watch a Hitchcock film this year for you FC!

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

i've heard of Lifeboat, but i never realized it was a Hitchcock film. i own quite a few of the movies on your list, but i've yet to open them, let alone watch them.
i will watch a Hitchcock film this year for you FC!

flick's nailed it with her LIFEBOAT review. It's well worth the watch.

 

[flickchick85]

i've heard of Lifeboat, but i never realized it was a Hitchcock film. i own quite a few of the movies on your list, but i've yet to open them, let alone watch them.
i will watch a Hitchcock film this year for you FC!

Then this whole venture will have been worth it.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Lifeboat rocks.

 

[Dark Raven]

Les Diaboliques seems like it should've been a Hitchcock film. It's a scary psychological thriller like Psycho or Rebecca. In fact, it apparently inspired Psycho, because Hitchcock wanted to make Les Diaboliques but was prevented when the eventual director, Henri-Georges Clouzot obtained the film rights. Apparently Hitchcock missed out on buying the screenplay rights by just a few hours.

It really was a case of "you snooze, you lose."

 

[Dark Raven]

13.) Rebecca (1940)

Netflix is currently remaking this film with Armie Hammer and Lily James as the leads, and considering my stance on Fontaine, I’ll probably see James as an upgrade, but going from Sir Laurence Olivier to Armie Hammer and from Hitch in the director’s chair to Ben Wheatley? Yeah, good luck, fellas. You’re gonna need it.

This was the last batch of 5 I'll be doing. The next batch will just be two films to get us down to the top 10 - one pre-Hollywood classic, and one from his prime era, which certain Oscar-winning Hollywood children should be ashamed of themselves for ever attempting to remake.

I was just thinking at this very moment that Lily James ought to star in a Hitchcock-type film, and lo and behold, I suddenly read that sentence and my wish was granted immediately!

Maybe they could get Chyler Leigh as the housekeeper, Mrs Chyler Danvers.

I wish it was on the big screen though. Although maybe that might not be such a good idea. Most Hitchcock remakes have not been good like A Perfect Murder (the remake of Dial M For Murder), Vince Vaughn's Psycho remake or Christopher Reeve's Rear Window remake. Although Robert Powell's The Thirty Nine Steps is the exception to that rule and might be even more Hitchcockian than the original.

You should do a review of all the Hitchcock remakes too, if you can stomach it.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Anyone re-makes Vertigo and I'll hunt 'em down like Bryan Mills would.

 

[flickchick85]

I wish it was on the big screen though. Although maybe that might not be such a good idea. Most Hitchcock remakes have not been good like A Perfect Murder (the remake of Dial M For Murder), Vince Vaughn's Psycho remake or Christopher Reeve's Rear Window remake. Although Robert Powell's The Thirty Nine Steps is the exception to that rule and might be even more Hitchcockian than the original.

You should do a review of all the Hitchcock remakes too, if you can stomach it.

Hmmm...the only one I've seen is A Perfect Murder (which pretty much sucked), but I'm curious about the others. Might just do this once I finish the countdown.

Anyway, here's the last two to get us down to the top 10:

12.) Dial M for Murder (1954)

There are two aspects to immediately note about this film – One, it’s based on a play and feels like it, as it is easily one of Hitchcock’s talkiest films, as well as one of his most claustrophobic, neither of which is a bad thing at all. The other major noteworthy fact about this is that it was intended as a 3D release, which seems like a fairly bizarre choice, given the first fact. Yes, a movie that takes place mostly in one location and features predominantly dialogue seems like an odd choice for 3D indeed, and upon the film's release, the 3D fad had died down, so it was largely shown in 2D, anyway. However, the choice to film it for 3D wasn’t a total loss, because it actually resulted in some rather cool shots that Hitchcock might not have gone for otherwise, which “pop” with or without 3D. This film’s got a great cast, but more importantly, a great plot. As I said, these characters talk a lot, but thankfully, all that stuff they’re talking about is quite fun and engaging. Ray Milland stars as Tony, a former tennis star who finds out his wife Margot, played by Grace Kelly, is cheating on him with a crime novelist (Saboteur star Robert Cummings), and so, in order to receive her inheritance, he plots to have her murdered and blackmails a former classmate to carry it out while he’s out to dinner with a perfect alibi. Since it happens in the first half, I don’t think it’s too spoilery to say that the murder goes awry, as Margot fights back and kills her assailant in self-defense. That whole sequence, by the way, is top-notch suspense – Tony has explained to the killer (and the audience) exactly how this murder is supposed to go down, so watching as things play out (and don’t quite play out) as he described while we helplessly watch Margot play into the events that are supposed to lead to her death is classic Hitchcock. And then she tips the scales, and Tony still manages to twist this development in his favor, getting Margot convicted of murder by convincing the police that the assailant was blackmailing her over the affair and that she deliberately killed him.

What makes this film so fun to watch is that it is mostly told from Tony’s - the villain’s - perspective, and usually when we watch a film about a criminal planning a crime, we tend to start rooting for them to pull it off, but that’s not the case in this instance. Here, the tension comes from watching Tony’s plan run into complications, yet each time he still manages to swerve around it and maneuver the situation back into his favor, which is frustrating in the best way because we desperately WANT to see this one get caught. Grace Kelly was never the greatest actress to me, but she does earnest well, and despite Margot’s extramarital affair, she’s still got the audience entirely in poor oblivious Margot’s corner. She has no idea she’s being set up by her husband, never even suspects he may have had something to do with the attempt on her life, and is just at a loss for what has happened. A great addition to the plot is Cumming’s character Mark, who’s openly in love with Margot, attempting to appeal to Tony to help him clear Margot’s name, since they both “love” her. Tony pretends to play along - as he wants no one suspicious that this is what he wanted to happen - and there’s a great bit where Mark, a crime novelist remember, concocts a story for them to sell to the police to get Margot pardoned, and that story sounds, well, exactly like what really happened. Watching how Tony tap-dances around that scenario is a joy. As I said, this film may be talky, but the dialogue carries it well. This is also one of those rare Hitchcock films where the policeman character is actually the guy who saves the day (in other films, Hitchcock usually seemed not-too-fond of the police). John Williams (not that one) plays Chief Inspector Hubbard, and despite Mark’s attempts, it’s Hubbard who ultimately figures out what’s really going on, and the way he lays a trap for Tony in order to prove his suspicion is easily one of the cleverest bits in a Hitchcock film. And shame on you, Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow – you know what you did.


11.) The Lady Vanishes (1938)

I have seen this wonderful little odd duck of a movie being touted as Hitchcock’s last British film, and I guess they mean his last great British film because Jamaica Inn came after, but I wouldn’t judge anyone for pretending that film doesn’t exist. This one certainly seems like the last of his British films that Hitchcock actually cared about at any rate, and he probably wishes it was his last because what a farewell film this would have been. I call it an “odd duck” because this is a rare comedy-thriller that actually earns both its “comedy” and “thriller” monikers honestly and feels equal parts both. It starts off with a more comedic bent, introducing our heroine Iris (Margaret Lockwood), whose train through continental Europe has been delayed by an avalanche, forcing her to stay overnight at the local hotel along with a very colorful cast of characters. Some of these characters are downright goofy, and two of them, the cricket-obsessed duo of Charles and Caldicott, ended up being spun-off into their own little film/tv/radio franchise after the success of this film. Honestly, if you watched the first 20 minutes of this and thought you were watching an Alfred Hitchcock screwball comedy, I don’t think anyone would blame you. We get a hint of the thriller element that night when one of those colorful characters, a folk singer, is strangled to death mid-song by an unseen assailant. It really kicks into gear the next day though, when this eclectic bunch of strangers begins their journey on the next train. Early on, Iris befriends a dotty old woman named Mrs. Froy and the two quickly become travel buddies. Iris takes a short nap, and when she awakens, Mrs. Froy is missing, and what’s worse, when Iris asks around for her, it seems no one even remembers her. She enlists the help of Michael Redgrave’s musician character Gilbert, with whom she had a contentious little meet-cute with back at the hotel, and the two really do have rather delightful chemistry.

The thriller elements of this film work because it’s got that absolutely killer central mystery working for it (which has been imitated by many a thriller since) and played completely straight, but also because there are moments where our protagonists’ lives seem genuinely in danger, and there are even one or two of what I would consider to be legit jump scares. But even when its thiller side kicks into gear, the film doesn’t forget its sense of humor. While those moments of tension and danger feel genuine, there are other moments Hitch could’ve played for those aspects, but instead chooses to play for laughs. One example is when Iris and Gilbert are searching for clues on the storage car and someone sneaks up and attacks them. Instead of being a tense moment, the ensuing fight scene is highly amusing. Same goes for when most of the passengers are involved in a massive shootout in the third act, and some of them are just casually chatting through it as if it’s their 10th shootout this week. Most filmmakers would struggle to transition between these clashing tones, but Hitchcock juggles them flawlessly. In fact, I’d say pretty much every aspect of this film – the structure, the tonal shifting, the pacing, the cast of characters, the central mystery and the finale – feels perfectly calculated, so it’s easy to see why this film remains on so many lists of the greatest British films of all-time, and why Hitchcock ended up on Hollywood’s radar shortly following its release.


I've decided each of the top 10 will get their own post, so up next, my fave psychiatric fairy tale. That's right, I said what I said!

 

[Dark Raven]

Hmmm...the only one I've seen is A Perfect Murder (which pretty much sucked), but I'm curious about the others. Might just do this once I finish the countdown.

Anyway, here's the last two to get us down to the top 10:

12. Dial M for Murder (1954)

There are two aspects to immediately note about this film – One, it’s based on a play and feels like it, as it is easily one of Hitchcock’s talkiest films, as well as one of his most claustrophobic, neither of which is a bad thing at all. The other major noteworthy fact about this is that it was intended as a 3D release, which seems like a fairly bizarre choice, given the first fact. Yes, a movie that takes place mostly in one location and features predominantly dialogue seems like an odd choice for 3D indeed, and upon the films release, the 3D fad had died down, so it was largely shown in 2D, anyway. However, the choice to film it for 3D wasn’t a total loss, because it actually resulted in some rather cool shots that Hitchcock might not have gone for otherwise, which “pop” with or without 3D. This film’s got a great cast, but more importantly, a great plot. As I said, these characters talk a lot, but thankfully, all that stuff they’re talking about is quite fun and engaging. Ray Milland stars as Tony, a former tennis star who finds out his wife Margot, played by Grace Kelly, is cheating on him with a crime novelist (Saboteur star Robert Cummings), and so, in order to receive her inheritance, he plots to have her murdered and blackmails a former classmate to carry it out while he’s out to dinner with a perfect alibi. Since it happens in the first half, I don’t think it’s too spoilery to say that the murder goes awry, as Margot fights back and kills her assailant in self-defense. That whole sequence, by the way, is top-notch suspense – Tony has explained to the killer (and the audience) exactly how this murder is supposed to go down, so watching as things play out (and don’t quite play out) as he described while we helplessly watch Margot play into the events that are supposed to lead to her death is classic Hitchcock. And then she tips the scales, and Tony still manages to twist this development in his favor, getting Margot convicted of murder by convincing the police that the assailant was blackmailing her over the affair and that she deliberately killed him.

What makes this film so fun to watch is that it is mostly told from Tony’s - the villain’s - perspective, and usually when we watch a film about a criminal planning a crime, we tend to start rooting for them to pull it off, but that’s not the case in this instance. Here, the tension comes from watching Tony’s plan run into complications, yet each time he still manages to swerve around it and maneuver the situation back into his favor, which is frustrating in the best way because we desperately WANT to see this one get caught. Grace Kelly was never the greatest actress to me, but she does earnest well, and despite Margot’s extramarital affair, she’s still got the audience entirely in poor oblivious Margot’s corner. She has no idea she’s being set up by her husband, never even suspects he may have had something to do with the attempt on her life, and is just at a loss for what has happened. A great addition to the plot is Cumming’s character Mark, who’s openly in love with Margot, attempting to appeal to Tony to help him clear Margot’s name, since they both “love” her. Tony pretends to play along - as he wants no one suspicious that this is what he wanted to happen - and there’s a great bit where Mark, a crime novelist remember, concocts a story for them to sell to the police to get Margot pardoned, and that story sounds, well, exactly like what really happened. Watching how Tony tap-dances around that scenario is a joy. As I said, this film may be talky, but the dialogue carries it well. This is also one of those rare Hitchcock films where the policeman character is actually the guy who saves the day (in other films, Hitchcock usually seemed not-too-fond of the police). John Williams (not that one) plays Chief Inspector Hubbard, and despite Mark’s attempts, it’s Hubbard who ultimately figures out what’s really going on, and the way he lays a trap for Tony in order to prove his suspicion is easily one of the cleverest bits in a Hitchcock film. And shame on you, Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow – you know what you did.


11. The Lady Vanishes (1938)

I have seen this wonderful little odd duck of a movie being touted as Hitchcock’s last British film, and I guess they mean his last great British film because Jamaica Inn came after, but I wouldn’t judge anyone for pretending that film doesn’t exist. This one certainly seems like the last of his British films that Hitchcock actually cared about at any rate, and he probably wishes it was his last because what a farewell film this would have been. I call it an “odd duck” because this is a rare comedy-thriller that actually earns both its “comedy” and “thriller” monikers honestly and feels equal parts both. It starts off with a more comedic bent, introducing our heroine Iris (Margaret Lockwood), whose train through continental Europe has been delayed by an avalanche, forcing her to stay overnight at the local hotel along with a very colorful cast of characters. Some of these characters are downright goofy, and two of them, the cricket-obsessed duo of Charles and Caldicott, ended up being spun-off into their own little film/tv/radio franchise after the success of this film. Honestly, if you watched the first 20 minutes of this and thought you were watching an Alfred Hitchcock screwball comedy, I don’t think anyone would blame you. We get a hint of the thriller element that night when one of those colorful characters, a folk singer, is strangled to death mid-song by an unseen assailant. It really kicks into gear the next day though, when this eclectic bunch of strangers begins their journey on the next train. Early on, Iris befriends a dotty old woman named Mrs. Froy and the two quickly become travel buddies. Iris takes a short nap, and when she awakens, Mrs. Froy is missing, and what’s worse, when Iris asks around for her, it seems no one even remembers her. She enlists the help of Michael Redgrave’s musician character Gilbert, with whom she had a contentious little meet-cute with back at the hotel, and the two really do have rather delightful chemistry.

The thriller elements of this film work because it’s got that absolutely killer central mystery working for it (which has been imitated by many a thriller since) and played completely straight, but also because there are moments where our protagonists’ lives seem genuinely in danger, and there are even one or two of what I would consider to be legit jump scares. But even when its thiller side kicks into gear, the film doesn’t forget its sense of humor. While those moments of tension and danger feel genuine, there are other moments Hitch could’ve played for those aspects, but instead chooses to play for laughs. One example is when Iris and Gilbert are searching for clues on the storage car and someone sneaks up and attacks them. Instead of being a tense moment, the ensuing fight scene is highly amusing. Same goes for when most of the passengers are involved in a massive shootout in the third act, and some of them are just casually chatting through it as if it’s their 10th shootout this week. Most filmmakers would struggle to transition between these clashing tones, but Hitchcock juggles them flawlessly. In fact, I’d say pretty much every aspect of this film – the structure, the tonal shifting, the pacing, the cast of characters, the central mystery and the finale – feels perfectly calculated, so it’s easy to see why this film remains on so many lists of the greatest British films of all-time, and why Hitchcock ended up on Hollywood’s radar shortly following its release.


I've decided each of the top 10 will get their own post, so up next, my fave psychiatric fairy tale. That's right, I said what I said!

Great reviews. Both of these are two of my favourites, especially Dial M For Murder, which is leagues above A Perfect Murder. Dial M was intelligent. A Perfect Murder was just dumb.

Here's The Thirty Nine Steps 1978 remake on YouTube. It has the full movie, so you can watch it when you want. They've labelled it incorrectly though, because the remake is The Thirty Nine Steps, not The 39 Steps like the original.