Overrated?


It's funny, but sometimes I wonder if it's true that people highly rate movies they're *supposed to* like.

I know that sounds like anti-elitism knee-jerking,... but I guess my main feeling is that people appear to be willing to make allowances for dated directing, acting, and technique in general.

I'll start with probably the most obvious issue in Strangers on a Train; the acting.

The acting here fell into a few categories.

It seems that when it came to old lady characters, Hitchcock went for something that was basically an upgraded Margaret Dumont thing; stage-style, classically executed hamminess. These ladies were masters of stage farce, and I could see that they were willing to step into dark areas at Hitchcock's behest--and that reflects a kind of admirable professionalism--but in the end you saw a screen acting style that I don't think has aged well.

Another acting issue was the occasional bad actor. Face it: Farley Granger, bless his heart, wouldn't be tolerated for a second in a contemporary movie; even if he had twice the good looks, he still wouldn't get a part. Modern casting is supremely picky. Casting directors sniff out the smallest margins of non-talent, precisely so the audience won't have to smell it. There are venues for pop fare with lousy acting, but it's reasonable to hold Hitchcock to a higher standard. Farley let's his character slip/go wooden often enough that it's obvious he wouldn't make the grade these days.

Another factor is that, for all of Hitchcock's reputation as a filmmaker who broke with convention in a way that could attract more discriminating audiences, I've recently noticed a set of stock elements in his films, and it grated me a little to see it here: A basically good-hearted, but compromised male hero, led to redemption by a beautiful, good-hearted gal. And these Hitchcock redeemer women are cast and directed pretty much the same; knockout beauties with eyes ready to go filmy at the least provocation.

Another stock element: Law enforcement issues are tidied up so easily it almost looks flippant.

All that said, there are still things to recommend Hitchcock, of course. But think about these issues. And please add some of your own!

reply

[deleted]

I'm sorry. I know this post is 4 years old now, but I have to comment. Now I agree that Farley Granger was no prize as an actor. To say that he wouldn't make the grade today is a joke. Who would play the part now? Let's see.........maybe the talented and versatile Keanu. Maybe the great and exciting Cruise. Maybe the awesome stylings of that Gerard Butler. Or maybe the young thespian Shia Lebouf....Lol. Give me a break. Modern casting? Are you joking? Most, not all but most of the young actors today are some of the worst actors ever. So boring and stale. Just horrific with their reactions and their emotions or lack of. The older women's performances have not aged well? Yeah I guess today it may seem like "hamminess", because it's not dry and boring like most of the acting today. Come on this is a wonderful movie! One of Hitchcock's absolute best. The actor for the most part is very good. Leo G. Carroll is very good in this, as he is in every Hitchcock film he appears in. Robert Walker as the villain here is excellent. The story obviously is a very interesting one, based on the book by the same author who wrote The Talented Mr. Ripley (another very good film). To say though that this is overrated or the acting is subpar, especially when you compare it to what is put out there today. Well that is just ridiculous.

reply

"And these Hitchcock redeemer women are cast and directed pretty much the same; knockout beauties with eyes ready to go filmy at the least provocation".

Absolutely - more often than not, female characters were Hitch´s weak point. Only very few of them came out as remotely complex, three-dimensional human beings.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

For me, the star of this film is the camera. That camera is not overrated. Neither is Robert Walker. Everything else? You could say so without getting slapped. But watch the three or four movies from '51 -- A Streetcar Named Desire, The African Queen, The Day The Earth Stood Still, etc -- and watch them right in a row. Make a marathon of it. Then put on Strangers on a Train and prepare to say, "Wow, so that's why Hitchcock is so famous," because then you WILL finally "get it."

reply

Braut,

Thx. I'm going to seriously consider your suggestment.

--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield

reply

Hey, great, I hope you do. You'll get to watch three other good movies while you're at it, so why not, eh? Just try to be a little more aware of the camera than you usually would for each film.

reply

Yes, slightly overrated










I exist.

reply

Not overrated to me.
9/10.
It's very good Hitchcock.
And one of the best noir films I've seen.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

reply

I didn't read what you typed I only read the title, and a simple answer: yes.

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying!

reply

Yes, definitely a bit overrated. It starts off great (for the 30 minutes or so), but the middle of the film is just so blah, and the tennis match towards the end of the film went on way too long. Farley Grangers character was a bore too, and a much more interesting lead character could've done wonders for the film.

reply

you and the other people who think this film is overrated have OCD, ADHD, and AssBurgers

just go back to your Transformers movies

reply

Transformer fans aren't watching Hitchcock movies, and not every person is going to like the same thing. I've seen almost every Hitchcock film, and the only two I think are overrated are this one and The Birds. Psycho, Vertigo, Rebecca, and Suspicion are probably my four favorites.
I'm sure there's plenty of movies you think are overrated too.

reply

I am half way through this film, and I am bored. I love N by NW, Rear Window, Shadow of a Doubt, I have a soft spot for Marnie. But, this is boring; I don't care about any of the characters, can't wait until it is over. I have never seen the Man Who Knew Too Much, that one (both) are on my list as well.

reply

Definitely overrated. Good, but not great.

reply

Yes. Perhaps the most over rated film of all time considering the amount of praise it gets for two hours of eye role moments and implausibilities.
There are some great moments. Miriam killed in the reflection of her eye glasses. The tennis match where everyone watches the ball, but Bruno is looking at Guy. A few others.
But starting with the fact that Guy's train alibi is full proof and the cops version is an impossibility, and ending with the fact that Guy actually creates a case against himself for conspiracy to commit murder by trying to hide Bruno and then get's off in the same instant he's implicated, yes.... incredibly over rated.

reply