419 reviews
- maxbinnewies
- Nov 1, 2013
- Permalink
Alfred Hitchcock has made many brilliant thrillers, and many of them have gone on to be hailed as some of the greatest films of all time. One film that tends to get somewhat lost under the Vertigo's and the Psycho's is this film; Strangers on a Train, the most compelling film that Hitchcock ever made. The story follows Guy Haines, a tennis player and a man soon to be wed to the Senator's daughter, if he can get a divorce from his current wife. One day, on the way to see his wife, he meets the mentally unstable Bruno Anthony aboard a train and soon gets drawn into a murder plot that he can neither stop nor stall; and one that could ultimately cost him his life.
The conversation aboard the train between Bruno and Guy is one of the cinema's most intriguing and thought provoking of all time. What if two people "swapped" murders, thus resolving themselves of all suspicion of the crime, and rendering their motive irrelevant? Could this truly be the perfect murder? What makes this film all the more frightening is that the events that Guy is lead into could happen to any, normal everyday person. Everyone has someone they'd like to get rid of, so what if you met an insane man aboard a train that does your murder for you and then forces you to do his? The chances of it happening are unlikely, but it's the idea that anyone could be a murderer that is central to the message of Strangers on a Train; and in this situation, anyone could.
Is there any actor on earth that could have portrayed the character of Bruno Anthony any better than Robert Walker? The man was simply born for the part. He manages to capture just the right mood for his character and absolutely commands every scene he is in. The character of Bruno is a madman, but he's not a lunatic; he's a calculating, conniving human being and Robert Walker makes the character believable. His performance is extremely malevolent, and yet understated enough to keep the character firmly within the realms of reality. Unfortunately, Robert Walker died just one year after the release of Strangers on a Train, and I believe that is a great loss to cinema. Nobody in the cast shines as much as Walker does, but worth mentioning is his co-star Farley Granger. Granger never really impresses that much, but his performance is good enough and he holds his own against Walker. Also notable about his performance is that he portrays his character as a very normal person; and that is how it should be. Ruth Roman is Guy's wife to be. She isn't really in the film enough to make a lasting impression, but she makes the best of what she has. Alfred Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, takes the final role of the four central roles as Barbara, the sister of Guy's fiancé. She is suitably lovely in this role, and she tends to steal a lot of the scenes that she is in.
Alfred Hitchcock's direction is always sublime, and it is very much so in this film. There is one shot in particular, that sees the murder of the film being committed in the reflection of a pair of sunglasses. This is an absolutely brilliant shot, and one that creates a great atmosphere for the scene. Hitchcock's direction is moody throughout, and very much complies with the film noir style. The climax to the film is both spectacular and exciting, and I don't think that anyone but Hitchcock could have pulled it off to the great effect that it was shown in this film. It's truly overblown, and out of turn from the rest of the movie; but it works. There is a reason that Hitchcock is often cited as the greatest director of all time, and the reason for that is that he doesn't only use the script to tell the film's story, but he also uses to camera to do so as well. Strangers on a Train is one of the greatest thrillers ever made. Its story is both intriguing and thought provoking, and is sure to delight any fan of cinema. A masterpiece.
The conversation aboard the train between Bruno and Guy is one of the cinema's most intriguing and thought provoking of all time. What if two people "swapped" murders, thus resolving themselves of all suspicion of the crime, and rendering their motive irrelevant? Could this truly be the perfect murder? What makes this film all the more frightening is that the events that Guy is lead into could happen to any, normal everyday person. Everyone has someone they'd like to get rid of, so what if you met an insane man aboard a train that does your murder for you and then forces you to do his? The chances of it happening are unlikely, but it's the idea that anyone could be a murderer that is central to the message of Strangers on a Train; and in this situation, anyone could.
Is there any actor on earth that could have portrayed the character of Bruno Anthony any better than Robert Walker? The man was simply born for the part. He manages to capture just the right mood for his character and absolutely commands every scene he is in. The character of Bruno is a madman, but he's not a lunatic; he's a calculating, conniving human being and Robert Walker makes the character believable. His performance is extremely malevolent, and yet understated enough to keep the character firmly within the realms of reality. Unfortunately, Robert Walker died just one year after the release of Strangers on a Train, and I believe that is a great loss to cinema. Nobody in the cast shines as much as Walker does, but worth mentioning is his co-star Farley Granger. Granger never really impresses that much, but his performance is good enough and he holds his own against Walker. Also notable about his performance is that he portrays his character as a very normal person; and that is how it should be. Ruth Roman is Guy's wife to be. She isn't really in the film enough to make a lasting impression, but she makes the best of what she has. Alfred Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, takes the final role of the four central roles as Barbara, the sister of Guy's fiancé. She is suitably lovely in this role, and she tends to steal a lot of the scenes that she is in.
Alfred Hitchcock's direction is always sublime, and it is very much so in this film. There is one shot in particular, that sees the murder of the film being committed in the reflection of a pair of sunglasses. This is an absolutely brilliant shot, and one that creates a great atmosphere for the scene. Hitchcock's direction is moody throughout, and very much complies with the film noir style. The climax to the film is both spectacular and exciting, and I don't think that anyone but Hitchcock could have pulled it off to the great effect that it was shown in this film. It's truly overblown, and out of turn from the rest of the movie; but it works. There is a reason that Hitchcock is often cited as the greatest director of all time, and the reason for that is that he doesn't only use the script to tell the film's story, but he also uses to camera to do so as well. Strangers on a Train is one of the greatest thrillers ever made. Its story is both intriguing and thought provoking, and is sure to delight any fan of cinema. A masterpiece.
When it comes to Cinema's hall of fame of screen villains Robert Walker's Bruno Anthony has to rank up there with the best of them. Outwardly harmless, he possesses the twisted psyche of a spoiled mummy's boy who is all too willing to resort to murder to get his own way (sounds a little like Norman Bates, doesn't it?).
Walker graces the role with sly hints of effeminacy that hint at his character's sexual orientation, something that in 1951 would have contributed to the overall impression of louche decadence. And what a loathsome creature he truly is, almost toadying towards tennis player Guy Haines as he ingratiates his way into the hapless athlete's life only to turn it upside down with his diabolical 'criss-cross' plan. To be fair, Haines is a tailor-made victim, and the passive indecision of his character is perhaps the film's biggest flaw. As others have no doubt noted, Haines would only need have gone to the police to sort everything out because Bruno's suave mask is clearly as fragile as an eggshell, and even a novice interrogator would quickly determine that something's not right about him.
As murder plots go, it's not a bad idea – apart from the unlikelihood of two like-minded strangers meeting, discussing and then agreeing to such a plot in the first place. Bruno takes the vaguest of affirmations – distractedly delivered by Haines to shake him off – as confirmation that his plan is a goer and promptly murders Haine's estranged wife in a justifiably famous fairground murder scene.
The psychological subtext is laid on pretty thick for an early fifties film, making it a piece of work that rewards repeated viewings. Walker's character grows increasingly menacing as the film progresses, not through any changes of attitude or manner on his part, but because of what the audience learns about him as the story unfolds. For the most part, however, his role in the film is simply as a villainous foil for the clear-cut Haines, which is a shame as it would have been interesting to see just how Bruno became as twisted as he was. Nevertheless, Strangers on a Train deserves the classic status it enjoys, and is worth a couple of hours of anybody's time.
Walker graces the role with sly hints of effeminacy that hint at his character's sexual orientation, something that in 1951 would have contributed to the overall impression of louche decadence. And what a loathsome creature he truly is, almost toadying towards tennis player Guy Haines as he ingratiates his way into the hapless athlete's life only to turn it upside down with his diabolical 'criss-cross' plan. To be fair, Haines is a tailor-made victim, and the passive indecision of his character is perhaps the film's biggest flaw. As others have no doubt noted, Haines would only need have gone to the police to sort everything out because Bruno's suave mask is clearly as fragile as an eggshell, and even a novice interrogator would quickly determine that something's not right about him.
As murder plots go, it's not a bad idea – apart from the unlikelihood of two like-minded strangers meeting, discussing and then agreeing to such a plot in the first place. Bruno takes the vaguest of affirmations – distractedly delivered by Haines to shake him off – as confirmation that his plan is a goer and promptly murders Haine's estranged wife in a justifiably famous fairground murder scene.
The psychological subtext is laid on pretty thick for an early fifties film, making it a piece of work that rewards repeated viewings. Walker's character grows increasingly menacing as the film progresses, not through any changes of attitude or manner on his part, but because of what the audience learns about him as the story unfolds. For the most part, however, his role in the film is simply as a villainous foil for the clear-cut Haines, which is a shame as it would have been interesting to see just how Bruno became as twisted as he was. Nevertheless, Strangers on a Train deserves the classic status it enjoys, and is worth a couple of hours of anybody's time.
- JoeytheBrit
- Sep 20, 2010
- Permalink
One would have expected Hitchcock's return to major studio filmmaking to err on the side of chastened caution. Surely few expected his most riotous, unrestrained film, a gleeful melange of vicious black comedy, exciting suspense, mocking manipulation, and astonishing flights of fancy. But that is precisely what they got: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.
What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).
Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.
Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.
Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.
And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.
STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self.
What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).
Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.
Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.
Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.
And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.
STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self.
- alice liddell
- Sep 28, 1999
- Permalink
Strangers on a Train directed by Alfred Hitchcock is a crime drama, which follows a tennis star who is recognised by a stranger. Their compelling conversation on the train is followed by a series of deranged events, which immensely torments the tennis star, unexpectedly placing him on the cusp of crime. Going into this film I was expecting great things. Although this film didn't meet my expectations... it exceeded them. Where can I start. The performances are all outstanding. The black and white cinematography is creative, expressive and beautifully artistic. This film contains sequences which are so thrilling, I was genuinely invested, due to how well they hold up. I particularly loved the subtle visual imagery and symbolism which enforces a major concept explored in the film. Strangers on a Train has you invested for the entire runtime. The script is so riveting, as it explores a range of tones without ever slowing down. Many individuals today refuse to see films which are black and white, believing that they are not entertaining. Strangers on a Train rebukes that misconception on every level. This film is an incredible film making achievement so therefore I give it a 9.
- charbelelaro
- Apr 1, 2019
- Permalink
"Strangers on a Train" is a brilliant example of what Hitchcock could do best, continually develop his plot and characters in an atmosphere both creepy and humorous. The film has great dialogue, superb characters, good acting, and naturally superb direction from the master of suspense who is truly at his best here. Robert Walker's Bruno Anthony is a character few will forget; he is creepy, psychopathic, and as M. Night Shyamalan says on one of the DVD's special features it is the fact that he has moral standards, however unconventional and disturbed they may be, that makes him such a dangerous man.
Strangers is a truly involving film, one that takes you on a ride you won't forget anytime soon, it has one of the best examples of buildup you could find on film, and as soon as it ends the film takes you on a journey that entertains and terrifies and even makes you laugh. This is a truly brilliant example of film-making, every shot is drenched in suspense, every cut is masterful, every detail important, every second exciting, it never lets go till the very end, and what an ending that is, a delicious bit of humor that is perfectly in tone with the rest of this delightful masterpiece.
Some have criticized Farley Granger's performance as Guy Haines, but it really is quite perfect; he delivered all his lines well and makes us feel honestly sympathetic towards him. Robert Walker is simply genius as Bruno Anthony, a great character that wouldn't have been nearly as memorable without Robert Walker's devilishly evil portrayal of him. The supporting cast are good, Ruth Roman, Leo G. Carroll, Kasey Rogers, Howard St. John and Patricia Hitchcock all deliver good performances that enhance what was already a good film and make it a great film. Alfred Hitchcock's direction is, as always, sublime.
What makes "Strangers" so good is the simple plot. It isn't a complicated story, two strangers meet on a train, and one comes up with a crazy plot: "You do my murder, I do yours." One takes it as a joke and shrugs it off, but the other takes himself seriously and goes on to commit the murder he offered to, getting the 'good guy' into huge trouble. The script is adapted superbly well by Whitfield Cook from a novel by Patricia Highsmith.
This is really one of Hitchcock's most interesting films from a technical perspective while also providing more than enough laughs, suspense, and thrills to keep just about anybody engaged.
10/10
Strangers is a truly involving film, one that takes you on a ride you won't forget anytime soon, it has one of the best examples of buildup you could find on film, and as soon as it ends the film takes you on a journey that entertains and terrifies and even makes you laugh. This is a truly brilliant example of film-making, every shot is drenched in suspense, every cut is masterful, every detail important, every second exciting, it never lets go till the very end, and what an ending that is, a delicious bit of humor that is perfectly in tone with the rest of this delightful masterpiece.
Some have criticized Farley Granger's performance as Guy Haines, but it really is quite perfect; he delivered all his lines well and makes us feel honestly sympathetic towards him. Robert Walker is simply genius as Bruno Anthony, a great character that wouldn't have been nearly as memorable without Robert Walker's devilishly evil portrayal of him. The supporting cast are good, Ruth Roman, Leo G. Carroll, Kasey Rogers, Howard St. John and Patricia Hitchcock all deliver good performances that enhance what was already a good film and make it a great film. Alfred Hitchcock's direction is, as always, sublime.
What makes "Strangers" so good is the simple plot. It isn't a complicated story, two strangers meet on a train, and one comes up with a crazy plot: "You do my murder, I do yours." One takes it as a joke and shrugs it off, but the other takes himself seriously and goes on to commit the murder he offered to, getting the 'good guy' into huge trouble. The script is adapted superbly well by Whitfield Cook from a novel by Patricia Highsmith.
This is really one of Hitchcock's most interesting films from a technical perspective while also providing more than enough laughs, suspense, and thrills to keep just about anybody engaged.
10/10
- ametaphysicalshark
- Aug 14, 2006
- Permalink
"Strangers on a Train" was one of those film classics I had always heard about but somehow never gotten around to actually seeing. I finally watched it a few weeks ago and, as always with any Hitchcock movie, it not only stood up to the test of time, it far surpassed most thrillers being made today. You can see the inspiration for future action movies here - the climactic ending with the out-of-control merry-go-round and the two villains dueling each other reminded me of the big action sequence at the end of Jan de Bont's "Speed." Of course, "Strangers" is over forty years older than "Speed" and contains no modern special effects, but the visceral thrill is there - Hitchcock was a true genius.
The not-so-subtle gay side of Bruno (Robert Walker in an amazing performance) has taken form in many other psycho-stalker-figures in future movies. Consider him a male version of Jennifer Jason Leigh in "Single White Female." He knows about Guy before he even meets him on the train - we almost get the feeling their contact isn't incidental - and is soon entirely obsessed with him.
Hitchcock loved the Oedipial elements in his movies (also see "Psycho" for more blatant undertones) and there's a lot of that here. Bruno hates his father and wants him to die so he can be with his mother. His effeminate ways and obvious homosexuality must have just slipped by the censors in 1951, when gays were not "allowed" to be portrayed on the screen - yet Hitchcock gets the message through effectively when we see Bruno in the lounge on the telephone wearing a very non-masculine robe, flirting with Guy and responding to his mother.
The deep layers of this movie make it a fast-paced thriller than you can return to again and again - unfortunately it's being remade as a big-budget Hollywood production, but after seeing the original I honestly can't imagine anything surpassing the sheer white-knuckle thrills of this movie.
The not-so-subtle gay side of Bruno (Robert Walker in an amazing performance) has taken form in many other psycho-stalker-figures in future movies. Consider him a male version of Jennifer Jason Leigh in "Single White Female." He knows about Guy before he even meets him on the train - we almost get the feeling their contact isn't incidental - and is soon entirely obsessed with him.
Hitchcock loved the Oedipial elements in his movies (also see "Psycho" for more blatant undertones) and there's a lot of that here. Bruno hates his father and wants him to die so he can be with his mother. His effeminate ways and obvious homosexuality must have just slipped by the censors in 1951, when gays were not "allowed" to be portrayed on the screen - yet Hitchcock gets the message through effectively when we see Bruno in the lounge on the telephone wearing a very non-masculine robe, flirting with Guy and responding to his mother.
The deep layers of this movie make it a fast-paced thriller than you can return to again and again - unfortunately it's being remade as a big-budget Hollywood production, but after seeing the original I honestly can't imagine anything surpassing the sheer white-knuckle thrills of this movie.
- MovieAddict2016
- Jul 3, 2006
- Permalink
'Strangers On A Train is rarely mentioned as the best movie he made but it is definitely one of his finest. I have watched a few of his movies recently and I regard this as better than 'North By Northwest', 'Notorious'. 'The Wrong Man', 'Vertigo', 'Spellbound', 'Rope'. Indeed I would put it right up there with 'Psycho',
Robert Walker is simply fantastic as the psychotic Bruno and why he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar is ludicrous. The fact that he died in tragic circumstances not long after this movie was finished compounds the fact that he had an amazing career ahead of him. Also I must give mention to Patricia Hancock who gives a really fine performance as Babs. Every actor is on point here and there are so many memorable scenes.
'Strangers On A Train' is a good movie, it really is that simple. A director at the peak of his powers and a performance from Robert Walker that lingers in the memory.
Robert Walker is simply fantastic as the psychotic Bruno and why he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar is ludicrous. The fact that he died in tragic circumstances not long after this movie was finished compounds the fact that he had an amazing career ahead of him. Also I must give mention to Patricia Hancock who gives a really fine performance as Babs. Every actor is on point here and there are so many memorable scenes.
'Strangers On A Train' is a good movie, it really is that simple. A director at the peak of his powers and a performance from Robert Walker that lingers in the memory.
- antide-42376
- Aug 28, 2022
- Permalink
Strangers on a Train boasts a neat central idea (the 'swapping' of murders), several classic Hitchcockian moments, and a fine performance from Robert Walker as psychotic socialite Bruno; but despite these admirable qualities the film fails to qualify as a complete success thanks to a severely flawed final act that makes one wonder what the hell Hitch was thinking.
Farley Granger's tennis-pro Guy Haines being coerced into discussing murder by charismatic lunatic Bruno—all well and good. The nutter carrying out his side of the plan as discussed—great stuff. Haines afraid to go to the police for fear of being implicated in a murderous pact with a clearly deranged Bruno—hey, why not? People don't always make the wisest of decisions when under pressure.
The whole ridiculous fairground finale, however, cannot be so easily brushed aside. Bruno develops telescopic arms, the police act like bumbling trigger-happy fools, and a merry-go-round achieves warp-speed before a toothless old guy confuses a self-destruct lever for the brake. It's like something out of a fever-dream—illogical, perplexing and utterly deranged—a dreadful way to end what was proving to be a very enjoyable thriller.
6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.
Farley Granger's tennis-pro Guy Haines being coerced into discussing murder by charismatic lunatic Bruno—all well and good. The nutter carrying out his side of the plan as discussed—great stuff. Haines afraid to go to the police for fear of being implicated in a murderous pact with a clearly deranged Bruno—hey, why not? People don't always make the wisest of decisions when under pressure.
The whole ridiculous fairground finale, however, cannot be so easily brushed aside. Bruno develops telescopic arms, the police act like bumbling trigger-happy fools, and a merry-go-round achieves warp-speed before a toothless old guy confuses a self-destruct lever for the brake. It's like something out of a fever-dream—illogical, perplexing and utterly deranged—a dreadful way to end what was proving to be a very enjoyable thriller.
6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.
- BA_Harrison
- Aug 24, 2013
- Permalink
- ccthemovieman-1
- Aug 15, 2006
- Permalink
- classicsoncall
- Oct 31, 2006
- Permalink
Alfred Hitchcock is my all time favourite director, his films are full of his fashioned touches and masterful technique, a vast majority of them are compelling from start to finish. Strangers on a Train is one of those compelling films, even though Hitchcock clashed with the script writer several times and was underwhelmed by Farley Granger's lead performance, it is still a gripping movie. For one thing it is very well made, the cinematography is crisp and beautiful and the setting is authentic. Also helping add to the nail-biting atmosphere is the outstanding music score, while sometimes romantic it is also haunting and tense. Then we have a very good screenplay, superb direction from Hitchcock and two particularly brilliant scenes at the fairground(the second being the better one in my opinion). The acting is stellar, while I found Farley Granger dull in Rope, this dullness works for his tennis-champion character and it was an understated performance I really liked. Ruth Roman and Patricia Hitchcock are alluring and convincing in their roles, and Leo G.Carroll is memorable as Senator Morton. Robert Walker is absolutely amazing as Bruno though, he is eccentric, cold-hearted, smooth-talking and very chilling. Overall, a splendid nail-biter, a definite winner from Hitch. 10/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Apr 25, 2010
- Permalink
- moonspinner55
- Jun 21, 2005
- Permalink
This is a little known Hitchcock movie but I think it is one of his best. I like how he inserts humor into this crime drama. For example the small boy pointing a gun at the Bruno character at the carnival and the Bruno character popping his balloon with a lit cigarette. And there is the comic scene at the tennis courts where the audience in unison moves there heads back and forth following the ball except for Bruno who glances straight away at the tennis player.
Hitchcock plays suspense masterfully as in the tunnel of love sequence early in the film. We know that Bruno plans to murder the woman and we 'see' that is why he is following her into the tunnel. We hear a scream and think the deed is done when voila! the girl comes sailing out with her two admirers. Then there is one of the finest scenes in all movie history: the final scene on the carousel. Hitchcock manages suspense on many non-stop levels: the two protagonists fighting each other, a small boy who nearly falls from the ride as it whirls at tremendous speed, and the elderly man who crawls beneath the carousel to try and get at the brakes. Although I think the end of the scene was a bit over the top it was masterful to that point and I will never forget it.
I was surprised to see Ruth Roman in the lead. Usually Hitchcock has blondes for his leads, but the commentator on the TMC channel told us Hitch had to use her because she was under contract to the studio where he filmed it.
I highly recommend this obscure Hitchcock masterpiece and give 9.99 out of 10.
Hitchcock plays suspense masterfully as in the tunnel of love sequence early in the film. We know that Bruno plans to murder the woman and we 'see' that is why he is following her into the tunnel. We hear a scream and think the deed is done when voila! the girl comes sailing out with her two admirers. Then there is one of the finest scenes in all movie history: the final scene on the carousel. Hitchcock manages suspense on many non-stop levels: the two protagonists fighting each other, a small boy who nearly falls from the ride as it whirls at tremendous speed, and the elderly man who crawls beneath the carousel to try and get at the brakes. Although I think the end of the scene was a bit over the top it was masterful to that point and I will never forget it.
I was surprised to see Ruth Roman in the lead. Usually Hitchcock has blondes for his leads, but the commentator on the TMC channel told us Hitch had to use her because she was under contract to the studio where he filmed it.
I highly recommend this obscure Hitchcock masterpiece and give 9.99 out of 10.
Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique.
Arguably one of the pioneering "suspense thrillers", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.
But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of "swapping murders" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of "darkness in humanity's heart", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable.
The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the "Id", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing.
Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply "the director's daughter" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics.
All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience!
-9/10
Arguably one of the pioneering "suspense thrillers", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.
But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of "swapping murders" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of "darkness in humanity's heart", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable.
The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the "Id", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing.
Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply "the director's daughter" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics.
All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience!
-9/10
- bkoganbing
- Feb 7, 2007
- Permalink
Bruno Antony randomly encounters tennis star Guy Haines on a train, after a while in each other's company, Bruno details a plan for murder, for the pair to carry out killings for each other, thus drawing suspicion and focus away from themselves.
I get why this is regarded as a classic for many fans, and rightly so, I thoroughly enjoyed it, I wouldn't perhaps put it up there with the likes of Rear Window, Vertigo and The Birds, but it's still an excellent film.
It is full of suspense, it's clever, and it presents us with a tantalising, ingenious murder device, two strangers with zero apparent motive, committing the perfect crimes. I see the ending has gotten criticism of some fans, personally I quite liked it.
Robert Walker delivers an extraordinary performance, the whole cast are great, but his chilling, relentless doggedness is the key to the film's success, he has some presence on screen. Granger is also excellent.
Impressive visuals, the tennis scenes in particular look great, and good to see that Farley Granger Granger can actually play tennis, it's very rarely the case with films and TV shows.
8/10.
I get why this is regarded as a classic for many fans, and rightly so, I thoroughly enjoyed it, I wouldn't perhaps put it up there with the likes of Rear Window, Vertigo and The Birds, but it's still an excellent film.
It is full of suspense, it's clever, and it presents us with a tantalising, ingenious murder device, two strangers with zero apparent motive, committing the perfect crimes. I see the ending has gotten criticism of some fans, personally I quite liked it.
Robert Walker delivers an extraordinary performance, the whole cast are great, but his chilling, relentless doggedness is the key to the film's success, he has some presence on screen. Granger is also excellent.
Impressive visuals, the tennis scenes in particular look great, and good to see that Farley Granger Granger can actually play tennis, it's very rarely the case with films and TV shows.
8/10.
- Sleepin_Dragon
- Sep 16, 2023
- Permalink
I read recently in a collection of interviews by Peter Bogdanovich that he was not happy with picking Farley Granger as the foil in "Strangers on a Train." I would agree. However, the character of Bruno is so dominant and Robert Walker so insidious, I don't think it matters. Like most Hitchcock films, it's the camera. His mind's eye. The use of the women with glasses.
The overhead shots. The threatening shadows. The merry go round. The lighter that slips into the storm drain. Hitchcock even said that the old man that goes under the merry-go-round didn't realize that he actually was in grave danger. Had he raised up for a second, the thing would have taken his head off. Those scenes are vintage Hitchcock. I don't know if it is vintage Hitchcock, but it's better than about 95% of the movies being made today.
The man who somehow finds himself in an untenable position through no fault of his own and then must find out enough about it so he can survive is the benchmark of many of the films. The weakest part of the movie is the relationship of Granger's character with the people he knows. Somehow, I never really felt the suspense.
The overhead shots. The threatening shadows. The merry go round. The lighter that slips into the storm drain. Hitchcock even said that the old man that goes under the merry-go-round didn't realize that he actually was in grave danger. Had he raised up for a second, the thing would have taken his head off. Those scenes are vintage Hitchcock. I don't know if it is vintage Hitchcock, but it's better than about 95% of the movies being made today.
The man who somehow finds himself in an untenable position through no fault of his own and then must find out enough about it so he can survive is the benchmark of many of the films. The weakest part of the movie is the relationship of Granger's character with the people he knows. Somehow, I never really felt the suspense.
Based on the book by writer Patricia Highsmith, the film brings the story of two men to the big screen. Farley is fine in his role, however, Robert is perfect I think his character inspired other movie psychopaths.
The film has remarkable scenes, always with excellent performances. Walker, which for me is the highlight of this film.
I don't know if the ending is the same as the book, but I didn't like it very much.
The film has remarkable scenes, always with excellent performances. Walker, which for me is the highlight of this film.
I don't know if the ending is the same as the book, but I didn't like it very much.
- igornveiga
- Jul 7, 2022
- Permalink
Once Alfred Hitchcock said that good movie requires three things, good script, good script and good script. Surely this thing is very much depicted in this movie. The movie is about a tennis player (Fraley Granger) who has an unfaithful wife and a beautiful girlfriend. In the train he meets with a stranger (Robert Walker) who is infatuated to kill his father. Farley tells him about his chronics and casually stranger offers a very compelling proposal that I kill yours and you kill mine. And that the point where Hitchcock captivates his audience. Hitchcock had handled the neurotic sense of the movie immaculately and it mesmerizes you till the end of the movie. All the cast performed very well and the plot was very persuasive. No doubt its one of the best works of Hitchcock and for Hitchcock fans it's very much indulging.
- mianaliilyas786
- Oct 12, 2006
- Permalink
This may turn out to be a problematic comment, and I am afraid most of the 294 reviewers will not agree with it. I love "Strangers on a Train." It's a great movie, but in spite of rather than because of Alfred Hitchcock. It's great because of Robert Walker's astonishing performance. Take that out and what's left? A rather implausible thriller without anything particular to recommend it. Here's where I am going to enrage many people. The problem is Hitchcock. I am writing this comment from my desk in France. In France, cinefiles not merely admire Hitchcock they idolize him. Next week, in fact, TV will show a, no doubt idolizing, retrospective of his work. It's de rigueur in all countries to consider Hitchcock the master of masters. Yet somehow he never received, or was, I think, even nominated for a single Oscar. I think I know why. And this film provides a prime example. Hitchcock was an artist who worked with his head rather than his heart.
He seems to have been a paradoxical person. On one hand he was a great and humane person. He defied HUAC and gave the blacklisted Norman Lloyd a job at the height of the Red Scare. For that act of humanity alone he deserves all praise. On the other hand he apparently had an unpleasant streak. Any father who could bully his acrophobic daughter to go up and be stranded at a great height ... I am afraid of heights myself. You have no idea the feeling of panic, helplessness and frozen terror. My daughter has a fear of spiders. If I locked her, even as a joke, in a room full of eight-legged arachnids I wouldn't blame her for shooting me - or stranding me on a high ledge. Hitchcock also was said sometimes to browbeat one chosen cast member of his films. In this case it was Ruth Roman, probably because as a nice Jewish girl she couldn't be his prototypical blonde, blue-eyed Nordic heroine.
Well, everyone has his flaws. I don't exclude myself. But here's the point. Hitchcock's films, for me, with a few exceptions ("Shadow of a Doubt," "lifeboat") display an almost ironic detachment from human emotions. It's all in presentation, the technique. As Raymond Chandler put it, he didn't care about characters but only how to film them through the bottom of a wine glass upside down. Don't get me wrong. I love Hitchcock movies. They're fun to watch: "Foreign Correspondent," "The Lady Vanishes." But do we really care about any of these characters? Do we care what happens to the villains as they fall off Mount Rushmore or the Statue of Liberty? Do we really feel a heartwarming moment when Cary Grant embraces Eva Marie Saint? It's a far cry from the passion of Rhett and Scarlett. Are we invested in any of the characters in "Strangers on a Train?" Only one. And that is because of Robert Walker's genius.
So I give "Strangers on a Train" a 7 of 10. It's a captivating ride through Hitchcock-land. But if it weren't for Robert Walker I really wouldn't care. (One annoying plot element. In the tennis match scene, Farley Granger is desperate to finish the match fast and get out. Why doesn't he just hit the ball out of bounds? Lose fast. What's more important, wining a tennis trophy or not going to the electric chair?)
He seems to have been a paradoxical person. On one hand he was a great and humane person. He defied HUAC and gave the blacklisted Norman Lloyd a job at the height of the Red Scare. For that act of humanity alone he deserves all praise. On the other hand he apparently had an unpleasant streak. Any father who could bully his acrophobic daughter to go up and be stranded at a great height ... I am afraid of heights myself. You have no idea the feeling of panic, helplessness and frozen terror. My daughter has a fear of spiders. If I locked her, even as a joke, in a room full of eight-legged arachnids I wouldn't blame her for shooting me - or stranding me on a high ledge. Hitchcock also was said sometimes to browbeat one chosen cast member of his films. In this case it was Ruth Roman, probably because as a nice Jewish girl she couldn't be his prototypical blonde, blue-eyed Nordic heroine.
Well, everyone has his flaws. I don't exclude myself. But here's the point. Hitchcock's films, for me, with a few exceptions ("Shadow of a Doubt," "lifeboat") display an almost ironic detachment from human emotions. It's all in presentation, the technique. As Raymond Chandler put it, he didn't care about characters but only how to film them through the bottom of a wine glass upside down. Don't get me wrong. I love Hitchcock movies. They're fun to watch: "Foreign Correspondent," "The Lady Vanishes." But do we really care about any of these characters? Do we care what happens to the villains as they fall off Mount Rushmore or the Statue of Liberty? Do we really feel a heartwarming moment when Cary Grant embraces Eva Marie Saint? It's a far cry from the passion of Rhett and Scarlett. Are we invested in any of the characters in "Strangers on a Train?" Only one. And that is because of Robert Walker's genius.
So I give "Strangers on a Train" a 7 of 10. It's a captivating ride through Hitchcock-land. But if it weren't for Robert Walker I really wouldn't care. (One annoying plot element. In the tennis match scene, Farley Granger is desperate to finish the match fast and get out. Why doesn't he just hit the ball out of bounds? Lose fast. What's more important, wining a tennis trophy or not going to the electric chair?)
- friedlandea
- Dec 18, 2018
- Permalink
Usually, it is the other way around, but in this case, the movie is a major improvement over the original book.
I had seen this wonderful movie at least a dozen times, before I managed to find a copy of the book it was taken from....the book has the same title and was written by Patricia Highsmith.
I scoured the used bookstores for years, before I finally found a copy, and because the movie was SO good, I could not wait to begin reading the story in its original version.
I was never so disappointed!
Not because the book is unreadable...but because Hitchcock made such vast improvements over the book that the book simply does not come close to measuring up to the movie version.
That said, let me now comment on Robert Walker's amazing performance as Bruno Antony.
This was Robert Walker's last completed performance...he died while shooting his final film, "My Son John," in August, 1951.
This role as Bruno was the performance of his career!
Perfect in every way.
The movie has been around now for nearly half a century. I see it every time it is shown on television, and I also watch the tape I have of it occasionally.
Robert Walker's performance only seems to improve with each new viewing.
I can not recommend this movie highly enough.
If Hitchcock and Robert Walker can read me, up there in heaven, let me congratulate them both on an absolutely superlative job!
I had seen this wonderful movie at least a dozen times, before I managed to find a copy of the book it was taken from....the book has the same title and was written by Patricia Highsmith.
I scoured the used bookstores for years, before I finally found a copy, and because the movie was SO good, I could not wait to begin reading the story in its original version.
I was never so disappointed!
Not because the book is unreadable...but because Hitchcock made such vast improvements over the book that the book simply does not come close to measuring up to the movie version.
That said, let me now comment on Robert Walker's amazing performance as Bruno Antony.
This was Robert Walker's last completed performance...he died while shooting his final film, "My Son John," in August, 1951.
This role as Bruno was the performance of his career!
Perfect in every way.
The movie has been around now for nearly half a century. I see it every time it is shown on television, and I also watch the tape I have of it occasionally.
Robert Walker's performance only seems to improve with each new viewing.
I can not recommend this movie highly enough.
If Hitchcock and Robert Walker can read me, up there in heaven, let me congratulate them both on an absolutely superlative job!