The filmography of Alfred Hitchcock - Part 6: the 1970's

Hitchcock was clearly slowing down as he was getting old and when his wife Alma Reville suffered a paralyzing stroke, he wanted to spend more time with his family. That's why he only made two movies during the 70's.



Frenzy (1972)

Hitchcock eventually returned to England to make this serial killer thriller with dark comic tones. It has some themes from his unfinished movie called Kaleidoscope Frenzy, but it was heavily rewritten and only a few scenes remained in this one. I really like this movie and think it's one of his most under rated movies. Many people dismiss the movie as just another serial killer thriller and that Hitchcock had lost his touch. Sure the Hitchcockian tricks are all common at this point and I agree that the movie isn't exactly very innovative while using the most common Hitchcock's theme of a wrongly accused man, but it doesn't make it a bad movie by any means. I love the witty Brittish comedy mixed with the quite common serial killer routine. It's a story about a neck tie killer who rapes and kills women around London. The police have a suspect they're after but he's the wrong man. The movie manages to keep you guessing to the very last minute so the thriller part surely works well. But the best thing about this movie is the dark comedy in it. Some of the scenes are quite disturbing and the comic touch to them makes them even more bizarre. Even though the movie is not overly graphic that bizarreness awarded it an X rating. Quite an over reaction seen today, but still it's a weird little fact that this is the only Hitchcock film to get one. Anyway this movie turned out to be a nice surprise as my expectations weren't high when I first saw it. So be sure to not miss it if you're looking into Hitchcock's films.
92%



Family Plot (1976)

Hitchcock's 53rd movie ended up being his last. Even though the thriller genre was going to way different routes during the mid 70's Hitchcock relied on his trusted formula of comedy and light hearted thriller. Though this time the comedy wasn't the usual witty dark toned humour he's known for, he took it to more goofball way in this one. Don't really think it was a good idea as it completely waters down the thriller side of the movie and in the end it's not funny enough to be a good comedy either. It's a story about a fake psychic woman and his actor boyfriend who try to con an old lady to give them her wealth. But they need to find a lost friend of the family before the lady is willing to part her money. Turns out the lost man is a criminal himself as well. He kidnaps wealthy people for jewelry ransoms with his girlfriend. So the movie follows these two pairs as they mix up eachother's business. The idea is actually not bad at all and is quite intriguing at parts, but the style it's told doesn't really fit it well. Sure there are some nice Hitchcockian moments in the movie, but all in all it feels a bit clueless. Every time it's starting to build up suspension it takes a turn into a goofball comedy and every time it starts to entertain as a fun comedy ride it takes a turn into more serious thriller. I don't know if this was another experiment by Hitchcock, but for me it really didn't work that well. Even though Hitchcock was struggling with his health, this was not supposed to be his last movie as he started to work on another film right after it. But none the less, the very last scene of this film is actually a brilliant ending to his filmography, kind of like a nod towards the audience, ”you have been played but don't take it too seriously”. Had he planned this to be his last film that would have been an absolutely brilliant joke to his fans, but as he didn't it's just a stroke of luck that his filmography ends in a shot that kind of wraps up his career. If you're a fan of Hitchcock this is a must see, especially because of the last scene, the rest can safely skip this.
59%


Sir Alfred Hitchcock died in 29th of April 1980 shortly after he was knighted. Seems like he got his thanks always too late or just before his death. Weird thing is that he was Oscar-nominated 5 times as Best Director, DGA-nominated 6 times as Best Director, and received 3 nominations from Cannes, but he has never won in any of these competitive categories, a fact that surprises fans and film critics to this day. He did however receive the Irving Thalberg Memorial Award from the academy in 1967. His acceptance speech was the shortest in the history of Oscars, he simply said "Thank you." But awards aside, he didn't make movies for the academy, he made movies for the audience and that he did superbly. He truly deserves the title, The Master of Suspense, though I would give him the title of The Master of Witty Dark Comedy also. He dedicated his life to the art of filmmaking and gave us numerous masterpieces that work brilliantly even today.

Links to the other decades:
1920's - 1930's - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's - 1970's

The filmography of Alfred Hitchcock - Part 5: the 1960's

After the 50's Hitchcock was about as big as a director can be. He could have easily just sit back and slap his name on what ever garbage possible and made tons of money by doing so. But he wasn't about to do that, he wanted to challenge the audience and himself. In the eyes of business that may have not been a good idea, but in the eyes of the art that was brilliant. Even though his career started to fade during the 60's, it wasn't before he would take on the horror genre and give it not just one but two unforgettable masterpieces. And the rest of his 60's movies are not bad at all either. The old age and the troubles he had with some projects that were scrapped after long pre-production (for example Kaleidoscope Frenzy) slowed his pace down. As he averaged a movie a year before, with sometimes even two, he slowed down to just 5 movies in the 60's.



Psycho (1960)

So while Hitchcock left the 50's with a bang, a plethora of brilliant movies and after two straight out masterpieces, surely there has to be one setback, right? Hell no, the 60's started right from where he left the 50's. He took the horror genre turned it upside down and gave it a jump start it'll never forget. Can't really say anything about this that hasn't been said already a million times. It has one of the most famous scenes in the movie history, one of the most famous theme songs in the movie history and one of the most famous character in the movie history. And still today it wipes the floor with most of the modern horror movies. Simply a brilliant masterpiece.
99%



The Birds (1963)

Ok, after three masterpieces in a row he took a second shot at the horror genre, surely he didn't have anything more to give to it after the brilliant Psycho? Oh yes he had. He took one of the most common pieces of nature and turned it into one of the scariest "monsters" in the movie history. I think not many people are scared of birds, but after watching this one who can honestly say they didn't watch the trees, rooftops and light poles to see where the birds are lurking? I did for sure. The effects of the movie have stood time surprisingly well and some of the scenes are still stunning even with today's standards. You could, and I think someone already did, write a whole book about how to build tension like in The Birds. A stunning masterpiece.
97%



Marnie (1964)

This movie was considered as the turning point of Hitchcock's career and it's kind of true. It was the end of the collaboration with composer Bernard Herrmann, it also ended the collaboration with Tippi Hedren and screenwriter Evan Hunter. So some of the strong forces from his previous movies ended up leaving before or after this movie. And surely he never could return to the brilliance that he had during the 50's or even 40's, but this is in no means a bad movie. The movie flopped horribly when it was released, though later on it has received the recognition it really deserves. It's a slow paced and surprisingly complex psychological thriller. Something that didn't really appeal to the audiences back then. To put the story in short it's about a woman, Tippi Hedren, who is a compulsionary thief with fobias that haunt her. A man, Sean Connery, falls in love with her and tries to ”cure” her in his own manner. There's a whole lot more to it than just that, but that's it in short. Hitchcock had never liked to shoot on location, he always preferred the studio. He said it gives so much more control and comfort to shoot in a studio, so every chance he had he tried to set up as many scenes in a studio as possible so he could leave the out doors shots to the second unit. It shows in his movies, but mostly for the good by creating this somewhat surreal feel to them. But on this one I noticed it to be kind of weird, especially in the set that is the outside street of Marnie's mother's house. It's clearly built on the set and there's a huge matte painting with a harbour in the background. And I really wondered why. There's not much happening in there, it's used I think four times in the movie only for people going from a car to the house or from the house to a car. Well guess there was no shortage of money and he had his reasons. Also I was quite surprised that the horse chace scenes were shot against a projection with the horse running on a giant treadmill inside a studio. Crazy, but I didn't notice that so it works brilliantly. Anyway this movie is still a very good psychological thriller with tons of great Hitchcockian moments. Sure time hasn't been kind to it at parts and it is a bit too slow paced, but still it worked surprisingly well and managed to be even shocking at parts.
82%



Torn Curtain (1966)

After Hitchcock's last movie was a box office failure and his next project was scrapped in pre-production, the studio held him on a short leash. The idea behind this movie was actually quite great. With the cold war looming a romantic spy thriller set in East-Germany by the Master of Suspense sounded like the perfect thing. Unfortunately that's when the studio saw dollar signs and speeded on with the production in their terms, not Hitchcock's. He didn't want Julie Andrews or Paul Newman in the movie but was forced to cast them by the studio. That resulted into another problem, as Julie Andrews was the biggest thing at the time right off from The Sound of Music (1965), her schedule forced the movie into production before the script was even finished. So Hitchcock started making a movie without a finished script and with a cast he didn't want. Needless to say this was one of Hitchcock's most unhappy directing jobs. But the studio interference didn't stop there, they wanted a different composer despite Hitchcock already had working with another composer. They also cut out a key scene that had a brilliant Hitchcock moment written all over it, but as that scene doesn't excist anymore we'll never know. So the movie ended up the way it is now. It's a very uneven spy thriller with some nice Hitchcockian moments, but the mood is missing. There's no chemistry between Newman and Andrews and to be honest Julie Andrews is basically just posing through the film without any attempt of acting. Only Hitchcock fans will get something more out of this as for the rest it's just a meaningles spy thriller that at parts gets a bit boring.
50%



Topaz (1969)

Hitchcock himself considered this movie as a test project and it really is quite different from his previous works. Even though it's a spy thriller, it doesn't have many of the elements common in Hitchcock's movies, like romance and comedy. It's one of those cold reality films and to be honest that's not Hitchcock's strongest point. This is a spy drama set in the cold war era, there's the Cuban missile crisis, French-Russian spy ring, KGB defector and a French intelligence agent caught in between it all. It has no big name stars, another test by Hitchcock to see how a big movie would work without any big stars in it. He thought the audience would be more driven into the story of the film as the big stars tend to distract the viewer from it. I kind of agree with that, but don't think that's a big problem. One thing this movie showed, you can't get big box office success without big stars in a movie like this. This movie ended up being one of the biggest box office failures in Hitchcock's career. Another test he made was to support the moods with colors, red is dangerous and so on. He himself admitted that it turned out to be a failure. So even though this is an experimental project and even Hitchcock himself thought it failed, it's not a bad movie. You just can't watch it as a Hitchcock movie, with the expectations that the name sets you. If you see it as a cold war spy drama without any names, it works very well as it is. But once you start to compare it to Hitchcock's other works, it falls way behind.
70%


Links to the other decades:
1920's - 1930's - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's - 1970's

The filmography of Alfred Hitchcock - Part 4: the 1950's

With both of the first Transatlantic Pictures movies having poor box office returns, the 50's didn't start well for Hitchcock. Surely he had become a star in his business during the 40's, but that was nothing compared to what he would become after the 50's. He went from independent back to the studio system and that proved to be the key to a phenomenal success. This is by far my favourite Hitchcock decade so pardon the praises, but what can you do when he did a masterpiece after another.



Stage Fright (1950)

Hitchcock started the 50's by going back to the basics. It begins as the basic story of a wrongfully accused man on the run from the police and a woman helping him out to clear his name, but it's a lot more complicated and the less you know the better. It's a murder mystery with lots of comedic moments, shot in black and white, so it clearly was someway a step to the more familiar turf. Funny thing about the ”basics”, this movie doesn't just have a love triangle, it actually has two of them. So there's lots of familiar themes for Hitchcock, but what makes this movie so special and also what made it be such a failure in the eyes of the moviegoers back then is one key element that Hitchcock uses to brilliantly play the audience. Can't tell you what it is or it would spoil the movie, but the audience felt they were betrayed and that the movie was flawed. Nowadays it's nothing special, the viewer gets fooled in movies all the time, but back then it was a huge thing. And that simply brilliant twist is why I love this one. Hitchcock is basically toying with the audience and just as the suspension is reaching it's peak, he slams the truth in the face of the viewer taking the suspension into levels of horror never seen in movies of it's time. Absolutely fantastic film making. The cast is quite great, though I don't know why, but I've never really liked Marlene Dietrich, but never the less she also does a fine job. The production began as a Transatlantic production, but was taken over by Warner Brothers as Transatlantic was struggling with money. I'm surely glad they did as this is one of Hitchcock's most under rated movies and a true phenom proving how far ahead of time Hitchcock was. The movie didn't receive much appreciation back when it was made, but it surely does today.
90%



Strangers on a Train (1951)

Hitchcock went back to studio films and continued on the thriller path, which he didn't eventually part from that often anymore. This movie may not be the one that comes out first when you talk about Hitchcock, even though it is one of the most famous and one of his most referenced works. It tells the story about two men, Bruno and Guy, who meet in a train and as they chat away it becomes apparent both of them have someone in their life they would like to get rid of. Guy has a troublesome wife and Bruno despises his father. Bruno suggests that they “swap” murders, other one kills the one who the other wants to get rid of and vice-versa. Guy laughs at the idea, but later when his wife is found dead and Bruno comes to claim his end of the “agreement” things get quite messed up. The story is quite brilliant and it's the true driving force of this movie with witty dark comedy and some quite intriguing points. The acting is quite ok, Robert Walker as Bruno does the best job of them, rest of them are not bad, but nothing special either. There are tons of brilliant Hitchcockian scenes, the lighter, the strangling, the tennis game, the carousel, the love tunnel, only to name a few. It's filled with them. With a better cast this would be in the top 3 of Hitchcock's movies, but it surely isn't far from it now either. A classic masterpiece.
94%



I Confess (1953)

This was the last film Hitchcock did for Transatlantic Pictures and eventually the company folded soon after. Father Logan hears a killers confession and gets mixed up in a police investigation. This movie has the Hitchcock's favourite theme of wrongly accused man told with a twist of moral dilemma of professional integrity against the integrity of private life. It's done superbly with some great Hitchcockian moments and a flawlessly traveling story. The cast is superb as in most of Hitchcock's following movies from the 50's and was a nice surprise to see Montgomery Clift in a bit different role. All in all great movie, even though it's not the best what the master has to offer.
83%



Dial M for Murder (1954)

After three black and white films Hitchcock didn't just return to color, this movie was actually shot in 3D. Though it didn't run too long as 3D and was released regular ”2D”, as even back then the gimmick didn't work too well as it doesn't work nowadays either. But anyway this is one of my favourite stories in Hitchcock's films. It's a nice little thriller where a man plans a perfect murder and hires a killer to murder his wife, but the plan doesn't work exactly as planned. Won't give out anymore about the plot as it's very nicely twisted. Like many of his previous films, this also is based on a theatre play and most of the movie happens in one room with long scenes of dialog. But it doesn't matter at all as the dialog is quite great and the story is truly intriguing. The cast is quite great, especially John Williams as the chief inspector does a great part. Even though this is a small scale movie and it's pretty straight forward without any tricks, it still works great even today.
92%



Rear Window (1954)

I really don't know what to say about this one without sounding an overly hyped fanboy. This movie is perfect in every aspect. It has the best lead couple in all of Hitchcock's movies with James Stewart and Grace Kelly, both of which have appeared in other Hitchcock's movies as well, but never together. It has some of the best scenes I've seen in any movie, some which even today haven't been matched. My favourite one of them is a single continuous take at the beginning which tells us more than 20 pages of dialog. The shot moves from a window to a man who's sweating in a wheelchair with his leg in cast, on the cast there's written ”here lie the earthly remains of L.B. Jeffries”, then it moves to a smashed camera where it moves to a picture of a race car crash with a tire flying towards the camera, then it moves to other photos from around the world where it moves to a negative of a beautiful woman and ends into a pile of magazines which have the woman on the cover. I mean that single shot tells us everything we need to know about the man, what happened to him, what's his name, what's his occupation, who's his love and so on. Absolutely ingenious. The story is brilliant even today, no matter that it's been copied so many times and the way it's made is just something spectacular. I don't want to praise too much, even though this movie surely deserves every bit of it, so I'll just say once more, it's perfect. Fun little trivia about the movie, it was considered lost for years as Hitchcock bought the rights for himself to give it as a legacy for his daughter with four other movies. It also had at the time the largest indoors set ever build for a movie, the whole block you see was built inside a studio. A technological and especially an artistic masterpiece. This movie should be considered general knowledge, so if there really is someone out there who hasn't seen it yet, do so now.
100%



To Catch a Thief (1955)

Ironically Hitchcock's most successful movie from the 50's is also my least favourite of his movies from the 50's. But that doesn't make it a bad movie in any way. It's still a good romantic thrill ride. It tells the story of a retired cat burglar who gets wrongfully accused for jewel thefts and needs to find the real thief to get the police off his neck and before he'll be killed by his old criminal partners. But that all is more of a sub plot, the main thing here is the romance with the ex-thief and a rich woman. The chemistry between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly is the real driving force in this movie. I guess Hitchcock noticed that as the thriller is kind of left in the shadows. As the movie is shot in the stunning scenery of Monaco, the director wanted to take a vacation from his usually darker side with this light hearted little romance story. Suiting to the scenery the movie is shot quite brilliantly and ended up grabbing the Oscar for cinematography. Quite a disturbing fact about the movie regards the famous chase scene where Grace Kelly drives away from the police in the narrow mountain roads of Monaco, she was actually killed in a car accident 27 years later on that very same road. This movie was one of the most successful movies of the 50's and even today it's quite enjoyable light entertainment.
70%



The Trouble with Harry (1955)

If I had to name 10 best movies of all time this would be one of them, hell, it would be in the top 5. The movie itself is not exactly the usual Hitchcock you'd expect as it's not really the kind of thriller he's most known for, but you can clearly see that all the elements are still there. It's basically a story about a corpse of a man, who many people get involved with but no one knows how he died or worse yet who killed him. The poor guy gets buried and dug up quite a many times and transported all around the town while everyone seems to have a different opinion on what to do with it. One of the first real black comedy movies and all in all pure brilliance every second of it. The quite unknown cast is superb, the mood is one of the best I've ever seen in any movie and the story is simple but still highly efficient. This is the movie that has inspired most, if not all, of the modern black comedy specialists. This movie also started the famous collaboration with Hitchcock and composer Bernard Herrmann. There's a scene in this movie that is probably my favourite scene of all time in any movie, won't spoil it but it involves a closet door that won't stay shut. A definite masterpiece, a classic that never gets old and one of the best films ever made.
100%



The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

I really don't know why Hitchcock wanted to do a remake of this one. The original was already a very good movie. Sure it was done with a very low budget and the acting could have been a bit better at times, but still it worked good enough. Well he surely fixed the low budget, there's not many costs spared on this one and the acting part is a lot better also. Though Peter Lorre on the original was quite brilliant, but his absence is well covered by James Stewart and the rest. Never really liked Doris Day though, guess she should have sticked to singing, though I guess that didn't go too well with her either. Actually her biggest hit ended up being the song from this movie, ”Que Sera, Sera”. The fixes to the storyline work quite well and at parts the story is better than the original. The Albert Hall sequence on the original was already great, but on this one it's just magnificent and there are a lot more of those Hitchcockian tricks in thise one. Can't say this is better than the original, but it's surely not worse either, it's just as good.
81%



The Wrong Man (1956)

This is not your typical Hitchcock, even though it has the common theme of wrongly accused man. This time it's not a fun witty romantic thrill ride, it's a darker toned tragedy. That's what I love about this movie, he takes another angle on his most common theme, how being wrongfully accused of a crime can destroy your life. It's based on a true story and the script is quite brilliant. The acting is also stellar with both Henry Fonda and Vera Miles doing one of their best performances. It's shot in black and white which only adds to the tragic tone of the movie. There's not many Hitchcockian tricks and the movie is very straight forward, but that's only a good thing as this kind of drama really doesn't need them. I see this step towards more dramatic content, kind of as a practice for his next project which of course turned out to be the defining movie of his career. This movie was the first to have a prologue by Hitchcock, though he later added them to his other movies as well. Amazingly after more than 50 years this movie is still as relevant as it was back then and that's a sure sign of a classic.
90%



Vertigo (1958)

Hitchcock at his best. All the knowledge aquired during the years comes down to this masterpiece. It's Hitchcock at most Hitchcockian, if that makes any sense at all. The story is brilliantly twisted, it's brilliantly acted, it's brilliantly shot and the mood is just something unbelievable. Hard to review this one as all of the aspects of the movie are just perfect. So I'm not going to write long lines of praise, I'll just say it's one of the best movies ever made and if you haven't seen it yet, it's your loss.
100%



North by Northwest (1959)

So what do you do when you've just done a whole career defining masterpiece? Well, you do another one of course. I'm not even trying to compare this to Vertigo because that wouldn't be fair to either of them as they are completely different movies. This is back to the usual Hitchcock theme of a wrong man in a wrong place at the wrong time. The script itself offers little new to the genre, and the sets and effects are kinda clumsy at today's standards. It's also shamelessly aimed to the general public not even trying to challenge the viewer. But all of that doesn't matter as it's one hell of an action adventure thriller with so many memorable scenes it's just unbelievable. The crop duster scene alone is worth the watch, not even mentioning the others. Again a masterpiece.
96%


Links to the other decades:
1920's - 1930's - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's - 1970's

The filmography of Alfred Hitchcock - Part 3: the 1940's

While the 30's made Hitchcock the master of suspense and the ”go to” guy when it came to entertaining thrillers, the 40's made him an auteur. Hitchcock left England to direct a ”few” Hollywood movies. He himself thought he would only do a couple of them and then return to England to continue his career there. Well, he did return to England, 30 years later after he had become one of the most influental filmmakers in the world. But more about that later. The start of his Hollywood career was not easy. He made a bad deal with David O. Selznick signing a seven year contract with him. Two auteurs don't really mix up that well and Selznick actually ended up renting Hitchcock to other studios more than employing him himself. That of course with a sweet profit to the pocket of Selznick. But even though Hitchcock got screwed for quite a bit of money and the beginning wasn't easy, he did some absolutely brilliant movies. And later in the 40's, after the 7 year contract ended, he went independent in an effort to break out from the studio system.



Rebecca (1940)

Hitchcock's first Hollywood film is also the first and eventually the only movie by him which won the best picture Oscar. It's a story about a woman who marries a widowed man only to end up living in the shadow of the dead wife. There's romance as always but this time with a psychological thriller and an intriguing mystery mixed to it. This diversity makes it quite a brilliant story with enough depth to really tickle your brain. The cast is quite superb with Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine, but the best part is by Judith Anderson as the creepy house maid. The movie looks stunning and people seem to miss one huge visual aspect of this movie witch should be given more credit. The movie uses deep focus photography quite brilliantly, something not common in movies before it and something that Citizen Kane (1941) is praised as the ”pioneer” of the style, even though Hitchcock used the same style a year earlier. This is a cinematic masterpiece and a must see for pretty much everyone. I just can't stop wondering how brilliant the movie turned out to be even though there were a lot of disagreements between Hitchcock and Selznick. For example the absolutely stunning ending of the movie would have been a lot different if Selznick would have had his way. But Hitchcock didn't want him re-cutting the movie so he edited the picture in camera, a method that didn't allow re-editing afterwards. I'm surely glad he did this as the movie is perfect the way it is.
96%



Foreign Correspondent (1940)

After their first project not ending the way Selznick wanted, even though the movie was a hit and ended up grabbing the Oscar, he rented Hitchcock out. Hitchcock went and did this movie about a reporter who tries to expose enemy agents in Europe. With the help of a young woman they go up against the spies. Hitchcock is doing what he does best. This movie has it all, there's action, thriller, mystery, adventure and of course romance with a war looming around the corner. Simply brilliant, not a boring moment in the film and as usual some of the scenes are just phenomenal. For example the plane scene near the end was just pure brilliance. The overly patriotic ending was a bit too cheesy, but then again that's what it was in most of the war time movies.
89%



Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)

Hitchcock stayed rented out and being convinced by Carole Lombard took on this romantic comedy. Although he had done some in the past, it's definitely not his ”ballpark” so to say. Despite the name, this has nothing to do with the newer movie with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. This is a story about a husband and wife who find out that they are not legally married, this turns into a love triangle when the husband's colleague steps in to court the ”ex-”wife. Despite it not being very Hitchcockian story, he is quite at home with it. Pretty much all of his movies have comedy and romance in them and love triangles he did quite a few back in the 20's, so it's definitely not bad at all. Guess people dismiss this one as it isn't a thriller what they expect from Hitchcock, but it didn't bother me. The chemistry between Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery is quite great and the movie has a good vibe to it. Time hasn't been kind to the movie as many of the jokes don't really work today when marriage isn't such a huge thing anymore. Still it had enough to keep me entertained.
66%



Suspicion (1941)

After the brief visit to the romantic comedies, Hitchcock went back to thrillers. This movie uses one of Hitchcock's common themes, the suspicious wife. A woman marries a man but after the honeymoon finds out he isn't exactly what she expected. Soon she starts to suspect the man from a murder and fears for her own life as well. The start of the movie is quite common romance with a bit of drama in it too, but the towards the end the thriller bit kicks into gear. And during the end half this movie is at it's best. There are some quite brilliant Hitchcock moments like the milk glass scene and the car ride among others. I liked that Cary Grant gets to show a bit meaner side of himself in this one, even though his fans were quite outraged by the fact that their hero might be a murderer. Joan Fontaine does a solid job as well and even grabbed an Oscar for her performance. Knowing that Hitchcock wanted a different kind of ending, I have to disagree with him a bit, I think the ending is quite great as it is now. Not near the top of Hitchcock's movies, mostly because of the dull start, but still worth the watch. The DVD I have had a colored version of the movie as well, but I really have to say the black and white version is way better than the colored one. On the colored version the colors were all smeared up and the picture looked out of focus most of the time. On the black and white version there were no such problems.
72%



Saboteur (1942)

Hitchcock was supposed to do this one with Selznick, but Selznick sold the script and rented out Hitchcock to Universal once again. Again there's the theme of a wrongly accused man with a woman in the run with him who fall in love. An aircraft factory worker gets accused for sabotage on the factory, but as he knows who did it, he decides to flee and solve the mystery himself. He gets help from a blind man whose niece joins him on his quest as they end up getting involved with a big organization behind the sabotage. The cast is quite great, especially Otto Kruger as the farmer with connections to the organization and Vaughan Glaser as the blind man. The main characters Pricilla Lane and Robert Cummings are not bad at all either. You can even spot Robert Mitchum in there as well, though only briefly as an extra. This movie has one of my favourite Hitchcock moments when the factory gets burned, that smoke against the white wall is simply brilliant. The ending at the Statue of Liberty is quite magnificent also. Though it's of course overly patriotic, but as it's a war time movie what else would you expect. Even though there were many great things about this one, it's not exactly great. It's way too similar to The 39 Steps (1935) with it's themes, it even has similar scenes in it. So it has a bit of a recycled feel to it. But other than that this is still quite a solid witty thriller.
73%



Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

As it was such a lucrative business for Selznick to rent out Hitchcock, he continued to do so. And who can blame him, easy money without any risks. Selznick got paid well no matter how the movie actually did in the box office. Though as most of the times the movies turned out to be hits, one can question was it smart thing to do or not. Anyway, Hitchcock has himself said that this is his favourite movie out of his filmography and it surely is a great one. It's a story about a family who gets a visit from the uncle of the children who no one has seen in a long time. The reunion is full of joy and basically dreams come true until the young woman of the family discovers quite a disturbing secret life of his uncle. The happy family movie turns into a very striking thriller. The cast is quite great with Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright as the main characters, but also the father, played by Henry Travers, and his friend, played by Hume Cronyn, are brilliant. Even though the movie is a bit dated at parts it still nails you to your seat and manages to even surprise you at times. That's a sure sign of a classic. Brilliant movie with quite a few Hitchcockian moments and the careless fun atmosphere is working like a charm before the thriller kicks in. The ring scene made my skin crawl.
91%



Lifeboat (1944)

A Hitchcockian thriller on a lifeboat, that's truly something special. Even though this has received some recognition lately, this is still by far Hitchock's most under rated movie and actually one of the most under rated movies of any director out there. This movie basically invented a genre of it's own and a style of film making that's copied in so many movies even today. Every disaster movie out there ows to this one. The movie starts out with a freighter being torpedoed during World War II. The German U-boat that torpedoed the freighter got hit also and sunk. A very diverse group of survivors from the freighter gather up in a lifeboat to try and sail for help or to the nearest shore. They pick up one more survivor who happens to be from the U-boat and happens to be the very man who sunk their ship. Needless to say that things get complicated, not only do they have to fight the German who's the only one who knows where to go, but they also have their own quarrels to make things even more complex. The cast is pretty much perfect and all do a stellar job. The story is intriguing and builds up nice suspense to keep you entertained. Surprisingly enough it's not overly patriotic, being a war time movie and having a theme that could exploit it quite easily. Sure it has many patriotic themes to it, but it handles most of them quite open mindedly. Really have to lift my hat to Hitchcock that he could build such a brilliant movie with nothing more than a group of people and a lifeboat. This movie is right at the top with the best of Hitchcock, a brilliant almost forgotten masterpiece.
100%



Spellbound (1945)

Hitchcock returned to work for Selznick on this thiller set in the world of psychoanalysis. It's a story about a young psychiatrist, played by Ingrid Bergman, in a mental institution who gets a new boss to run the institution. She starts to suspect that her boss, Dr. Edwardes, played by Gregory Peck, is not really who he claims to be, but manages to fall in love with him before that. Turns out Dr. Edwardes has actually gone missing and the man pretending to be him is accused for his murder. The woman runs out with the man and tries to figure out what has happened with psychoanalysis. The story is very intriguing, but it's a bit too much dated for modern audiences. There are still some very nice themes in it, but overall it stays a bit too superficial to be anything more interesting. The cast is great and there are tons of great Hitchcockian moments. Especially the gun scene at the end is pure brilliance. Salvador Dali was hired to make the dream sequence and it surely is quite disturbing like you'd expect. All in all this movie has many things right but the story is just a bit too dated to make it a great movie watched today.
70%



Notorious (1946)

Selznick needed money again and Hitchcock was rented out again. I bet this is one of the movies where he surely regret it later, even though he made a very sweet profit from it none the less. This is probably Hitchcock's most famous movie fromt he 40's and it surely is a great thriller with tons of classic movie moments. A woman, played by Ingrid Bergman, is asked to spy on a group of Nazi friendly people in South America. She ends up falling in love with the man who asked her for the job and when she needs to marry a member of the Nazi party, things get complicated. The trio Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant and Claude Rains is absolutely brilliant, but Leopoldine Konstantin steals the show as the mother of the Nazi friendly man Bergman's character has to marry. This movie probably has the most ”McGuffin's” in any Hitchcock movie. ”McGuffin” is an object that drives the plot and raises viewer tension and this movie has no shortage of those. A coffee mug, a wine bottle and probably the most famous key in the history of cinema. How such small objects can drive a plot and raise such emotions is just beyond me, simply a brilliant effort. A masterpiece in suspension building with that Hitchcock feel almost overflowing from it.
99%



The Paradine Case (1947)

Hitchcock's last movie for David O. Selznick turned out to be quite a mess. The movie went well over budget and schedule as Selznick insisted on expensive reshoots and rewrites. That resulted in a very uneven court house drama. Gregory Peck plays a lawyer who takes on a case of a woman who is accused of murdering her blind husband. There's drama, love triangle and a bit of mystery too, but it lacks the witty touch to it and there really is not much suspension in it, despite it being a thriller. The ending was quite striking, but getting there was surprisingly boring. The cast is quite brilliant and especially the actresses, Ann Todd, Ethel Barrymore and Alida Valli, all do a stellar job. Gregory Peck was a bit of a miss as the troubled lawyer though, but none the less manages to squeeze out a decent performance. The cast carries the movie when the story fails, but as the story is so weak there's not much they can do about it. In the end the movie is a bit too much on the boring side to keep the entertainment up. The movie flopped at the box office and ended Hitchcock's and Selznick's collaboration into one of Hitchcock's worst Hollywood films. They surely weren't friends, far from it, but still it's a shame as that duo did make some brilliant movies and this wasn't really the ending that era deserved. Then again one could easily say that the movies were brilliant just because of Hitchcock, but I believe Selznick had his say on them as well and that fight between them shaped the movies to what they are today.
42%



Rope (1948)

Hitchcock was finally free from his contract with Selznick and founded his own production company called Transatlantic Pictures with his long time friend Sidney Bernstein. This was their first production and Hitchcock without any limitations went a bit wild with it. It's Hitchcock's first color feature which produced quite a bit of problems by itself, for example it looks like the makeup artist had trouble doing the makeup for the men in color as they are quite powdery. But the color not the main technical advance this movie presents, most notably the movie is shot with seemingly one continuous take. Well actually in 10 minute segments as that was the length of the film reel, but he disguises most of the cuts quite cleverly. And when ever he really makes a notable cut, it is to underline the importance of the shot. That works quite brilliantly and knowing how gigantic the cameras were back then, that was surely a huge effort. So the Hitchcock trickery is well in hand on this one, but unfortunately the story is a bit off. It's just a bit too theatrical for a movie and not really subtle in the story telling. Kind of like everyone has to think out loud so that the audience knows what's going on. That unfortunately waters down the otherwise quite intriguing story. The story is about two men who murder their friend and host a party right after to their and the victim's friends, kind of to give them an alibi and to in a macabre way celebrate the perfect crime. Things of course don't go as planned and Hitchcock gets tons of suspense to play with. The cast is fairly good, though they all do a fair bit of over acting, probably because of the theatrical nature of the story. This was the first Hitchcock movie with James Stewart, who I think is the best of the male actors in Hitchcock's movies and they ended up doing 4 movies together, but more about that later. Unfortunately the movie was a bit too experimental and the audience didn't take it too well. Also it didn't help that the movie was banned in several US cities due to the themes of homosexuality and thus failed to do well on the box office. But watching this now you just have to give some credit for the strong themes it has and the absolutely brilliant way it's made.
85%



Under Capricorn (1949)

Hitchcock himself said that he made this film only for Ingrid Bergman. It's certainly an oddity in Hitchcock's filmography, being a costume drama with some suspense elements. It's again a love triangle, this time set in the 1830's Australia. The story and the setting are quite good and promises a lot more than the movie in the end delivers. Again Hitchcock uses long takes, but this time they really don't work as well. They kind of slow down the already very slow paced movie even more and somewhat water down the suspense of it. The movie looks great, the settings and the lighting are quite brilliant, but that really doesn't save it from getting boring. Really don't know why the French appreciate this movie so much and it's often considered there as one of Hitchcock's best. I've seen this twice now and still can't see the brilliance of it. As a curiosity it's worth watching as it's not really a Hitchcockian Hitchcock film, but I doubt anyone else but die hard fans of Hitchcock can get anything interesting enough out of it. The movie failed at the box office and things didn't look good for Transatlantic Pictures when the 40's came to an end after two financial failures.
55%


That's it for the 40's. My favourite Hitchcock decade, the 50's is next, so brace yourself for some top scores. As always don't hold your breath over it, it will come eventually.

Links to the other decades:
1920's - 1930's - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's - 1970's

The filmography of Alfred Hitchcock - Part 2: the 1930's

Ending the 20's to an all time high after directing the first ever Brittish talkie, the 30's were troubled times for Hitchcock. At one point his career seemed to be over before it really even took properly off. But even though during the 30's he hit the rock bottom, he also came back with a bang leaving his mark to the world that got surely noted in Hollywood. Coming to the 30's, even though he had made some hits in the 20's, he was still just an average director in the eyes of the producers. Also he was labeled as a silent movie director because of his very innovative visual storytelling and no one wanted to see silent movies anymore. So he had to still take on projects he really didn't want to, basically what ever he could get his hands on. But that would come to change and the 30's would end in him claiming the title of the master of suspense.



Juno and the Paycock (1930)

I first thought I'm not going to review this one as the version I had was from a poor quality print and the sound was just aweful. As there were no subtitles either I couldn't really understand much from their Irish accent. So I couldn't see much or hear much, but I got the point as the movie was really perdictable. The script is from a theatre act and I have to say it doesn't really work in a movie. Hitchcock is clearly trying to open it up, but still it's surprisingly bad effort from the master. Even though the movie is quite tragic, there's some good humour in it too which was at points surprisingly dark toned. That was pretty much the only good thing about this one.
36%



Murder! (1930)

Even though this started off quite good, it got boring pretty soon after, though luckily towards the end it picked up some momentum again. It's a murder mystery and an early court house drama. The movie moves too slowly for the modern taste and the plot is way too predictable, but still there are some fine Hitchcockian moments in it. For example the sentencing scene is quite brilliant and also the hanging noose shadow on the wall is really effective. A bit too slow tempo for my taste so probably not worth the second viewing, even though there are those few great scenes.
49%



The Skin Game (1931)

Remake of The Skin Game from 1921. A dispute between two families that escalates to porportions neither of them are willing to handle. First of all the print this DVD was made from was really bad, the first quarter of the film was really hard to follow as the image was at points really unwatchable and the sound wasn't the best either. Luckily it got better in the end. Anyways this was a pretty weak effort from Hitchcock. It was just plain boring most of the time. Though the ending was really strong and definitely saved this movie a lot, but getting there wasn't easy. Also some of the cuts in the movie were just too confusing, for example first there's half an hour where the movie just stood still and then all of a sudden the plot takes a giant leap forward only to come to another stand still. The auction scene and the ending were really strong, but the rest was a weak effort.
31%



Mary (1931)

Haven't been able to find this movie from anywhere so haven't seen it. Though it clearly does still exist as it's been shown on TV on some countries and possibly on VHS as well. Haven't seen a DVD of it yet though. Anyone have any hints where to look from?



Rich and Strange (1931)

Well this wasn't a great movie either, but still it had some quite strong moments. The first few minutes are setting up the movie really nicely, but then it falls into the usual romance drama for about 50 minutes. Kind of boring, though I liked the idea of a strong woman who fixes things up. But near the end it gets a jump start with some quite strong scenes and themes, especially for a movie this old. There's even a bit of horror in it. Loved the eating scene on the Chinese boat. If the setup story would have been shorter and the end part longer, this would have been a great movie, but now it's just too uneven to be that.
45%



Number Seventeen (1932)

Hitchcock didn't want to direct this movie but as his previous films flopped he was basically forced to do this one. He himself consideres this movie to be one of his weakest. I don't really agree with that. Sure the plot is confusing and at parts a bit rushed making it hard to make any sense of it. But actually it adds new depth to the mystery quite nicely. You have a group of people in a house, all of who haven't been properly introduced to give any background info about them. They seem to be there for different reasons, but it turns out most of them are after some stolen jewelry. Hitchcock plays a lot with the shadows and the movie has a noirish touch to it. There are many nice tricks typical for him, but the movie itself seems a bit shallow. The pace is quite fast and action packed which was not typical for a thriller like this. Well worth watching and it's actually a nice little piece in Hitchcock's filmography being an action packed little thriller with some dark comedy.
80%



Waltzes from Vienna (1934)

At this point Hitchcock's career was in it's lowest point and the director was quite certain he wouldn't work in a picture again. After many straight box office failures he had to take every project he could and that's why this musical romantic comedy landed on his hands. It's not much a musical even though it tells the story of Johann Strauss, it focuses more on the characters than the music. Though of course Strauss' music is very present. There are some quite funny scenes and the hilarious start promised a lot more than the rest of the movie delivered. Even though I didn't really enjoy this movie, it's still a nice little oddity in the works of the master. And I was surprised how well he made the obviously very shaky script into a working movie. As a curiosity this is well worth seeing, but as entertainment it's really not.
40%



The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)

Hitchcock was almost ready to end his career after a series of unproductive movies, struggling to find any kind of work with the movies. But while making Waltzes from Vienna (1934) he got the chance to direct this fairly low budget movie that he actually even wanted to do. The movie ended up saving his career. It became a small hit and did quite well at the box office, even though the film's producer thought it was garbage. It's a story about a family who gets mixed up in a plot to assassinate an ambassador. Their daughter gets kidnapped to keep them quiet and the father goes looking after her. Hitchcock makes most of the tiny budget and manages to squeeze out a very nice fast paced witty little thriller. There's not much of the typical movie trickery, but it has that Hitchcock feel all over it. Funny enough the idea of a common man getting unwillingly mixed up in some big conspiracy became a recurring theme in Hitchcock's movies. It's still not a masterpiece, but surely a very good movie and a brilliant effort knowing how little they had to work with in the first place. This was the first of the 6 straight thrillers he made that cemented his status as the master of suspense.
81%



The 39 Steps (1935)

After finally hitting gold at the box office Hitchcok was again able to make movies he himself wanted to make. This is the first part of the so called espionage trilogy. Again the theme of a wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time is there as a man watching a theatre act ending into a chaos meets a woman while they are fleeing from the theatre. The woman turns out to be a spy in the search of another spy with some highly confidential military secrets. The woman gets killed in the man's appartment and the police go after the man for the murder. The man is then forced to figure out the military espionage plan by himself to clear out his name. Again it's a solid, witty and fun little thriller without a dull moment. This movie features one of the most copied match cuts from Hitchcock; when a maid finds the body of the woman spy, her scream is cut to the train whistle where the man is fleeing to Scotland. That trick has been since used in hundreds of movies in some variation. There are plenty of other nice tricks in it too and the Hitchcock feel is pretty much starting to perfect itself. The movie also introduced another theme in Hitchcock's movies, the Hitchcock blonde. In most of his following movies the leading lady was blonde and stunningly beautiful, in this one the part is played by Madeleine Carroll. The movie was a hit and launched Hitchcock's career to an all new high.
89%



Secret Agent (1936)

Second part of the espionage trilogy. Set in the surroundings of World War I. This time a man returns home from the war to find himself dead. He is assigned an assassination job to eliminate a German spy. He gets help from a Mexican spy and a woman who is assigned as his wife. Set in Switzerland the movie focuses on the search of the spy and the romance between the man and the woman. Things don't go as planned on either of the stories and we have a fun witty little thriller again. But this time there's something missing, the movie feels a bit empty. Even though there is that fun careless chattering as always and this time the movie even takes quite a dramatic turn at one point, it still seems a bit shallow. Was worth watching and surely kept me entertained, but didn't really leave anything to think about. Even the movie trickery was quite basic.
61%



Sabotage (1936)

Last part in the espionage trilogy, though there are no spies in this one, it's a story about, well like the title says, sabotage. Mr. Verloc is running a movie theatre but as it's not exactly good business, he's trying to earn a few extra bucks by working for an organization wanting to sabotage England. His wife and the young brother of the wife have no idea what Mr. Verloc is up to. But the nosy man at the vegetable shop next door turns out to be an undercover police detective who is on to Verloc. Again the movie has a good mood to it, being witty and even funny at parts, but it takes a very dramatic turn into a tragedy. Surprisingly grim move in the light of Hitchcock's previous films, but not at all a bad one. Very solid thriller with a lot of great Hitchcockian moments. The package carrying part is simply art in form of tension building. Also the retribution scene at the end is something purely brilliant in it's silence witch tells more than a million words. This movie also brought out another recurring theme in his movies, the suspicious wife. I would personally call this the first masterpiece by Hitchcock, even though watched today it isn't as striking as it most likely was back when it was made. But still it's just a master class in movie making and even though time hasn't been kind to it, it's still definitely worth watching.
90%



Young and Innocent (1937)

After the darkly toned Sabotage Hitchcock went back to the fun and witty thriller which he surely knows best. A man gets accused of a murder he didn't commit, he flees from the police and the daughter of the police constable ends up helping him to solve the murder mystery. Sounds familiar right? Well it is, Hitchcock made many similar movies in themes and stories and that's why he became such an icon in the thriller genre. He gave the fans what they were expecting, always adding a bit of extra touch to it but always making sure he wouldn't go too far to not turn them down. This is not a bad movie at all, even though it's quite formulaic. It has a good feel to it and is entertaining enough to keep the interest up. It also has some very nice movie trickeries, especially a moving shot through a dance hall to the eyes of the killer. Similar to ones he did later that became quite iconic in the visual storytelling. Also have to give a special mention to the leading lady, Nova Pilbeam, this unknown actress does a very solid job and I really wonder why she didn't get any more proper parts in future films. She surely has the talent. So there's plenty to keep you entertained and even though it's formulaic it's still a feel good romantic thriller worth watching.
77%



The Lady Vanishes (1938)

This is the best movie from Hitchcock's Brittish films. It's basically a comedy, but with a murder and a mystery of course. And what a mystery it is. A lovely old lady goes missing in a train going through a country somewhere in Europe. Only one who notices the lady missing is a young woman who was traveling with her in the train. Everyone seems to think the woman has lost her mind as no one else seems to have seen the old lady. The woman soon starts to think she really is losing her mind. Absolutely brilliant script in the hands of the master of suspense turns into a highly entertaining fun thrill ride. The cast is absolutely brilliant, the chemistry between the characters is something special worth seeing. The two English fellows on their way back home to a cricket game are one of the best comic sidekicks I've ever seen. Actually they did the same act again in two other movies later on and even made a radio show with their characters. Even though they steal the show at points the rest of the characters are definitely not bad either. Quite a brilliant mix of personalities. The movie is quite straight forward without many tricks, but that's what's great about Hitchcock, he knows when things need spicing up and when to go with the flow. And this movie surely flows. A stunning masterpiece.
99%



Jamaica Inn (1939)

Hitchcock's last Brittish movie before the Hollywood times is a historical piece about a group of pirates, or sort of at least. They are a bunch of criminals staying in a place called Jamaica Inn, at night they go to the beach, shut the guide light from the hill and wait till the ships crash to the shore. Then they rob the ships and kill the crew. A young woman travels to the inn to meet her aunt and discoveres what the men are up to. Hitchcock himself said this was his most unhappy directing job and that shows, the movie lacks the Hitchcock feel to it. It has all the right pieces but yet it feels very hollow and that makes this one quite a miss. It's a shame as there's many things right in the movie and the story is quite interesting.
45%


That's it for the 1930's. Even though I went through the 30's quite fast as I got quite interested in these movies again, I'd still urge not to hold your breath for the 40's. It will follow some time in the future.

Links to the other decades:
1920's - 1930's - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's - 1970's

The filmography of Alfred Hitchcock - Part 1: the 1920's

Alfred Hitchcock, the man who was morbidly afraid of eggs, the man who treated his cast as cattle, the man who wore a suit on set as it was the only appropriate attire for the occasion, the man who liked to do cameo appearances in his films, the man who undeniably left his mark in the art of cinema. He is by far my favorite director of all time and this collection of his films has been a work in progress for a long time. It's still not complete and most likely never will be as there's some of his early works that you just can't find anywhere. I'm not going to list and review his short movies or TV-series episodes, even though I've seen some of them, most of them are so hard to find that it's kind of pointless. I'll split the reviews in decades starting with the silent era of the 20's.



The Pleasure Garden (1925)

This is the earliest Hitchcock movie I've had the pleasure of seeing. It's also Hitchcock's first feature length movie. So as a big Hitchcock fan I was quite excited to see this one. I had already seen some of his other silent era films so this was a big surprise as it was quite Hitchcockian. There's lots of familiar elements you tend to recognize Hitchcock with, like murder, deception, forbidden love and so on. It doesn't have that many movie tricks yet, which are usually common for Hitchcock in his later productions. Though the first scene at the revue with the glasses was quite brilliant. The cast is quite basic silent era cast, who portray somekind of emotions. Though I have to say Miles Mander makes a good performance as Levett who looses his mind. For a movie freak this is a must see, although I don't think others will get that much out of it.
75%



The Mountain Eagle (1926)

No prints of this film are known to have survived and no one has seen it since the late 1920s.



The Lodger (1927)

Didn't take Hitchcock long to get on to his trademark genre of suspense thriller. And his first shot at it is quite an impact. It's a Jack the Ripper like tale of a serial killer terrorising London. It has the Hitchcock trademark style all over it, though really unrefined at this point, but you can still clearly see it. This is the best of the silent era films by the master of suspense and all in all a great movie. As a fun little trivia fact; this is the first film where Hitchcock did a cameo appearance, though in this one he was just filling in for the extras but later on it became one of his trademarks.
85%



The Ring (1927)

Quite an average movie from the Hitchcock's silet era. It's a story of a love triangle in the boxing world. Not the usual thriller you'd expect from Hitchcock, but still a good time piece. Already you can see some of the very innovative camera angles and some scenes are quite impressive. For example the swinging camera, the weird distortions and the knockout are very well made for a movie this old. Also the arm bracelet slip is just brilliant.
62%



Downhill (1927)

Life is not easy for Roddy Berwick, he takes the blame for a crime he didn't commit and that leads to a downhill series of mishaps that end up almost destroying his life. You can see some Hichcockian themes in this one, but it's still quite an odd movie for him. Mostly staying on the tragic side of drama, though of course this being the 20's it's still quite light but still a bit different from what you'd expect from him. As a curiosity piece this was well worth watching, but not really for anyone else who wouldn't care what the master of suspense can get out of a melodrama. The movie can be viewed for free under the creative commons rights at the Internet Archive, the picture quality is fairly ok for a movie this old and there is no sound or music.
55%



Easy Virtue (1928)

This is a movie about a woman who becomes notorious by divorcing her husband. Her husband mistakes the wife for having an affair with another man and the man ends up shooting the husband. After the divorce the press is after the woman and she escapes to France. There she finds a new man and after they get married the past comes to haunt the woman again. The beginning is quite great. Some very nice Hitchcockian tricks and the story is quite interesting. There's even some dark comedy in it when the husband gets shot. But after the woman flees to France the movie takes a dive into quite boring nonsense. Time hasn't been kind to the movie, divorce back then was a bit bigger thing I guess as watching this now it really seemed quite pointless.
39%



The Farmer's Wife (1928)

Hitchcock's silent era shot at the romantic comedy genre. The story was way too obvious to be interesting, but luckily there was enough of those odd comedy parts to keep me interested through the movie. Probably the most "un-Hitchcockian" of all of his movies and pretty much straight forward without any tricks. Still it's a feel good movie with some quite funny scenes. Worth the watch out of curiosity what the master of suspense can get out of a romantic comedy, but not likely going to watch this one again.
45%



Champagne (1928)

Another from the silet era. Definately one of the worst of Hitchcock and quite a dull movie all together. It's about a love triangle again, though this time with a bit of a twist. Mainly focusing on the leading character Betty, played by Betty Balfour, who's contribution to the film is mostly being unintentionally stupid as a boot and looking very confused. The rest of the cast wasn't really impressive either with exception of Gordon Harker who's always fun to watch. Again as always there's some brilliant scenes and camera tricks, like those glass shots, but all in all not really worth the time of the whole movie.
21%



The Manxman (1929)

Hitchcock's last shot at the silent movies is a remake of 1916's The Manxman. Again it has a love triangle, like most of his silent era films. This time a woman, Kate, promises her hand to a man, Pete, who leaves abroad to seek fortune. While Pete is away Kate falls in love with Pete's old friend Philip and as news of Pete's ship being shipwrecked arrive, they plan to marry. But then Pete comes back and things go wrong. Quite a straight forward movie with little interest. The court scene at the end was quite good though, but getting there was pretty boring.
34%



Blackmail (1929)

Hitchcock's first talkie. And really the first completely Hitchcockian film from him. There's tons of great stuff in this one. For example the transition from silent movies to talkies is done superbly. At first you think you're watching a silent movie with an orchestral score and some sound effects to make the mood different but still the same as before, then after the first few minutes of not hearing what people say they just start to talk casually. Just brilliant. Though after reading more about it I found out that the movie was started as a silent movie, but the studio wanted to switch to a talkie. So Hitchcock left some scenes in it from the silent takes and dubbed them later. Say what you will, but I think it works brilliantly. Also the transition from the love triangle stories to thrillers is just something genius. You can also see some of his famous camera tricks in this one and some really beautiful scenes. The cast is quite good, and that's really something as the leading actress didn't even speak English as she was cast for a silent movie. Especially Donald Calthrop makes a great performance as Tracy the blackmailer. A bit too uneven to be a masterpiece but still definitely worth watching and you can clearly see that a master is in the making.
78%


Links to the other decades:
1920's - 1930's - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's - 1970's