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]

Most definitely overrated. Rope, Rear Window, Psycho, Shadow of a Doubt, The Birds, Rebecca, Dial M for Murder and Vertigo are clearly superior imo (haven't seen Notorious, North by Northwest and To Catch a Thief yet). Good premise, but the script isn't without flaws and the story loses focus, becomes too action-oriented (which reduces tension instead of increasing suspense).

reply

Wow, you just listed his best movies (with the exception of Vertigo which i do think is very overrated). I guess you just don't like Hitchcock!

reply

I have to agree with you on this. I just finished seeing STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, and beside the very good performance of Robert Walker, there wasn't a lot that blew me away.

I've seen a lot of other Hitchcock films like NORTH BY NORTHWEST, REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO, PSYCHO etc, but of all these films I found this one the least interesting.

Let's put it like this: if I had to recommend a Hitchcock movie to someone who hasn't seen any of his works STRANGERS ON A TRAIN wouldn't be my first choice by a long shot.

I think it is overrated, especially compared to Hitchcock's other works. That doesn't mean it's a bad film. It's still enjoyable, but a classic? Not sure about that.

reply

Most of those things you called "stock elements" were invented by Hitchcock.

reply

i've just watched it for the first time and was disappointed. this film seems riddled with plot holes or unlikely bevaviour of the characters. or maybe i didn't get it?

examples:

1.) the psychopath contradicts his own plan of a perfect murder. the idea is that if they kill someone for each other in exchange, both have alibis and their respective murder can't be connected to them, because they are complete strangers, right? yet the psychopath does anything to connect himself to the tennis player, by turning up in his presence. at that point they don't appear like strangers anymore, but acquaintances or even friends.

2.) when the wife was killed, there was this scene when they were saying the tennis player may not cancel his games/appointments, because it would seem suspicious. say what?! if your wife was just killed and you move on with your life, acting like nothing happend - now THAT would seem suspicious.

3.) why wasn't the tennis player surrounded by reporters, when his wife was killed? wouldn't the media make a big story out of it?

4.) why wouldn't he go to the police and tell them everything? especially after the psychopath gave him the gun and house map, which could have served as evidence of the psychopath's plan.

5.) why would the psychopath take his dad's place in the bed and risk getting shot by the tennis player (who might have taken him for the dad he was suppossed to kill)?

6.) the merry-go-round operator gets shot as an innocent person by the police and nobody seems to care?!



reply

How can it be overrated when it doesn't top anyone's list? It's a good movie, that is all. No masterpiece.

reply

Not overrated at all, a great movie, and among Hitchcock's best. Granger and Walker were both perfect. Granger was a good actor in this sort of distraught role. Expecting a 1951 movie to have the same look, sound, social point of view, and acting style as a 21st century movie is a fool's outlook. The film's excellence comes from its own quality, not from any specious comparison to modern movies, actors, and directors.

reply