Hitchcock can make a good movie without a plausible plot.

Rating: Null/10 (22 November 2000)

This movie entertains because the director uses the beauty of San Francico, Kim Novak and a good score. The first time I saw this movie, the absurdities were overcome by the above. But after seeing the movie for the third or fourth times, the plot begins to grate on my penchant for logic. I don't mind fantasy, or even science fiction. But, its got to be logical. I find the concept of entering into a murder conspiracy with an accomplice who is as attractive as Kim Novak, and not insist that she move, is simply unblievable. Take it from an old detective, San Francico in the 50's was not big enough to hide a Kim Novak from the eye of a good detective. Then there is the scene at the tower. Its not bad enough that we have to see it once, we see it several times in cartoon color. when you commit a murder, you better think of as many varibles as you can, or you will get caught. Unless you murder some street person and nobody cares. The complex murder scheme makes for great entertainment. But consider this point. How sure could you be that Scotty would leave the scene? Even if he left the tower, the odds are that he would remain in the area. He's a former cop. He's just witnessed a suicide. He can't leave. One of the most absurd scenes is at the inquest, where he is having his character pummeled. Was this the writer's attempt to make Scotty's leaving the scene seem the most logical reaction? Well, it didn't work on me the last time I saw this film.