|
|
Post by Viced on Mar 11, 2017 15:38:02 GMT
6.5/10 or so. Fontaine is fantastic though.
and Widmark didn't start acting until 1947 fyi.
|
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 11, 2017 15:54:26 GMT
Why a 7/10 then? 'Cause your thoughts sure don't sound like 7/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 11, 2017 16:14:24 GMT
I think it's not quite top-tier Hitchcock, but Joan Fontaine is majestic and her Oscar win is deserving in its own right, not just as a makeup win for Rebecca.
|
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Mar 11, 2017 17:59:04 GMT
the ending is the main trouble. It was plastered on by the studio (since they didn't want to have Cary Grant as the killer) and you can tell. Otherwise it is a fine, fine film. Fontaine was brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Mar 12, 2017 2:54:43 GMT
And it's One of the weakest films from his filmography. Poorly written and Grant was miscast (richard widmark or ray milland could've been perfect!) the ending was pretty awful and very unsatisfying. Joanne Fontainhead is the only thing that amazed me from this weak drama. 7/10 thoughts? Yeah it's not one of his stronger works, but it's watchable enough. Fontaine was very good, but this was clearly a make-up Oscar for losing the previous year. |
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Mar 12, 2017 2:58:32 GMT
the ending is the main trouble. It was plastered on by the studio (since they didn't want to have Cary Grant as the killer) and you can tell. Otherwise it is a fine, fine film. Fontaine was brilliant. That stupid stupid studios! that's why we could never see Bette Davis in Hithcock's films  .. Yeah It's very very weird and irresponsible ending! even if He killed his wife it's just didn't solve the problem. . ,. that idea of Grant being a bad lot is terrible in the first place What do you mean that's why we never saw Davis in a Hitchcock film? Not like she never played deplorable characters, have you not seen "The Letter", "Of Human Bondage", "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" |
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Mar 12, 2017 6:18:54 GMT
Lol.
Anyway, it's certainly not one of his better films. Perhaps if he got the ending he would have liked, it could've been a bit better. I guess we'll never know.
But yeah, Joan Fontaine was great and I actually didn't think Cary Grant was bad at all. Perhaps a bit miscast, but certainly not bad. And of course, Hitchcock is the MVP. Building and building that suspense until it bursts.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Mar 13, 2017 9:04:24 GMT
What do you mean that's why we never saw Davis in a Hitchcock film? Not like she never played deplorable characters, have you not seen "The Letter", "Of Human Bondage", "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" Yeah, it would have been a match made in heaven if they finally worked together! Since she was under strict contract with some studio that wouldn't allow her to work with any random director ppl wanted. Oh I see, but it's not like they didn't make exceptions from time to time, sometimes studios would lone a star if the other one agreed to lone someone else to them. I guess Davis never pushed for such a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Mar 13, 2017 9:34:05 GMT
It does have the distinction of having the scariest glass of milk ever in a film.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824 
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Mar 13, 2017 14:04:44 GMT
That's a shame, I quite like it. It ranks somewhere in the middle of the 31 I've seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Mar 17, 2017 3:08:32 GMT
Studio mandated ending aside, I actually think it's a solid Hitchcock film. 8 / 10
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 17, 2017 20:54:36 GMT
Classic case of an ending destroying a movie.
|
|
.. Yeah It's very very weird and irresponsible ending! even if He killed his wife it's just didn't solve the problem. . ,. that idea of Grant being a bad lot is terrible in the first place
