I can't see why it received 6.5/10...Maybe just because Hitchcock was the director and raters think that they will commit a sacrilege if they rate it low...I think it's one of the most boring classic films I've ever seen in my life and I was really surprised that the Master of Suspense did not include ANY suspense in this movie...Really disappointed...4/10
shareI can't see why it received 6.5/10...Maybe just because Hitchcock was the director and raters think that they will commit a sacrilege if they rate it low...I think it's one of the most boring classic films I've ever seen in my life and I was really surprised that the Master of Suspense did not include ANY suspense in this movie...Really disappointed...4/10
Yeah...I saw it last night and it's kind of hard to argue with that. What has been pointed out is that he was pretty much under the control of notorious control freak and micro-manager David O. Selznick when he made it. That's got to be at least somewhat of a mitigating factor!
cinefreak
Stratosi, while I didn't yet see The Paradine Case, I agree with you about Hitch is wildly overrated. Most of his films prior to about 1960 or so are unwatchable. To say they're boring is putting it mildly. For a director with dozens of film credits, I give him thumbs up on maybe 5 movies. His movies from his British days are not even worth the money you pay for them at the dollar store; you know, 4 movies on one disc for a buck. It reminds me of the "classics" I was forced to read in school (and I am and always was a voracious reader) where virtually all of them sucked.
Billy the Kid
[deleted]
Hitchcock's films before 1960 are 'unwatchable'? Speak for yourself. Even Paradine Case has literally dozens of delicious moments of Hitchcockian expressionism.
shareI wouldn't call it a terribly bad film. I enjoyed some of Hitch's touches such as Latour's entrance with his face covered in the shadow. Very eerie. But I lost interest towards the end. Should have been shorter.
"Let us be crooked, but never common."
No . . . none of you understand . . . this was Hitchcock's masterpiece . . . no, not Vertigo . . . this one . . . my one regret? The lost footage, which apparently none will ever see again . . . I want the complete work . . .
shareFunny, I've been thinking this is much underrated. I'll be giving it another viewing shortly and will show it to my movie group, several of us senior citizens. LOL
I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.
Yeah it's funny that I think this is extremely underrated. I think the disappointment stems from the fact that with Hitch people will always think thriller.
Watched this a long time ago but still remembers how the main characters were very well developed. Loved that Hitch infused a sense of longing which resonated well with Peck's character.
Amongst Hitchcock´s canon, it´s quite properly rated - although not without interest, it´s certainly one of the lesser works. It´s poorly paced, often slogging along lethargically; excessively talky, insistently spewing blunt exposition at every opportunity; the acting, for a Hitch film, is generally sub-par... and, probably worst of all, we´re supposed to believe that an experienced top flight lawyer would fall head over heels for this average looking black widow who smells of lies and fabrications a mile away. Especially when this top flight lawyer looks like Gregory Peck ie should, in all likelihood be used to women throwing themselves at him. It just doesn´t make sense that he´d become resolutely irrational to the point of refusing to hear out folks who offer a different view of the broad and her household as a whole.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I loved it -- heard it wasn't that great and it really impressed me.
Stated off a little slow but once the courtroom stuff started I was hooked. Loved the conclusion and all as well!
Pretty tedious film. But I wouldn't say it was without suspense. I was in suspense the entire time wondering how much longer the film would last. I thought I was watching an old Peter Jackson film for a while.
Aside from the beginning and courtroom scenes at the end, I enjoyed the creepy manor scenes in the middle, and I liked Letour's (sp?) performance.
But I didn't see any love between Peck's character and his wife or any growing love between him and his client, Paradine. Had his wife not been so fraught with jealousy, I would have never known there was even subtext taking place.
Mrs. Queen:
I agree, I always loved this film from the first time I saw it on TV . . . I now have the DVD and play it on occasion . . . and love it . . . Hitchcock's hidden masterpiece . . .
Charming movie!
I've always liked it better than Psycho, personally...
Last time I watched it, I thought that the pacing was a bit off. No big deal. It's one of the better Hitchcock films IMHO.
~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER
Totally overrated, really.
I think you made the most convincing arguments within a few lines: The characters are unconvincing. Additionally Gregory Peck is a write-off in this particular picture. Especially his fumbling court scenes make him look like an amateur. I wouldn't want him as barrister and neither as actor. At least not in this movie.
In the end, a large part of the blame can be put on the producer, however. Spellbound suffers likewise, even more visible, because an exceptional Ingrid Bergman is seemingly constrained. You can watch her in her scenes warming up to great acting; only to be cut off seconds later. Compare that to e.g. Bunuel, where the actors are clearly given the stage and are allowed to develop.
6.5/10 is generous for this movie.
Aside from its IMDB rating, I don't see how the movie can be overrated when it's considered one of the "worst" Hitchcock films.
I actually thought it was much better than its reputation. (Which would mean it's underrated, but why split hairs?)