Given multiple reviews about 1941 ['movie'] ['Suspicion'], each offering insights, opinions, or criticisms on a single topic, merge them into a single, cohesive review. When reviews offer opposing viewpoints, ensure that both perspectives are represented in a balanced way. Structure the text to flow smoothly, weaving different points together to create a well-rounded summary. Ensure the text remains clear and easily understandable by removing any jokes, insider references, or quotes.Aim for a polished and engaging tone, creating a review that feels comprehensive and reflects the diversity of opinions. The text should be very long. Here the given reviews: ['Solid delivery but a poor ending A chance meeting on a train is the start of a whirlwind romance between wealthy young Lina McLaidlaw and the dashing and debonair Johnnie Aysgarth. It is not long before Johnnie finds himself a part of the McLaidlaw family even though the wider family perhaps feel that he is not a good enough match for Lina. Lina\'s patience is initially tested with Johnnie as some of his quirks bother and worry him but the loving streak behind his actions win her over. However as some worrying "facts" come to light about Johnnie, Lina starts to doubt that her husband has aspirations to bigger things that maybe extend to deceit, treachery and yes maybe even murder. In my view any Hitchcock movie is at very least worth a look and it was thus that I decided to return and watch this film again after almost two decades since I last saw it. Initially a bit dull the narrative quickly gets down into the business of throwing the audience back and forward in what we believe and what we don\'t. This makes for an interesting film albeit not as tense or gripping as I would have liked. The delivery is touched with an element of dark humour and mystery but the pace is perhaps a bit too slow at times. Hitchcock directs with the usual interesting touches and awareness of tone and atmosphere that you would expect from him, while the cinematography compliments the narrative by mixing the bright and carefree with the shadowy and threatening \x96 often in the same locations. As everyone and his dog will tell you, the ending is not that great and it does feel like a copout after so much back and forward \x96 a "happy" ending that plays to a simple audience while also satisfying the censors of the time. This aside the cast all work with the majority of the material well. Grant is slick but dark enough to work within his character. Fontaine convincingly flip-flops in her belief and works very well in keeping the audience with her no matter what she believes. Support is strong from Bruce, Carroll, Hardwicke and others despite them mostly doing small turns. Overall then a solid Hitchcock film; not anything that special but enough about it to be of interest. The cast and director work well with the narrative but the ending is a disappointment as it does nothing of any interest of value and panders to the lowest denominator. '] Please respond to my question, and always conclude your reply with the words 'Reply finished' to indicate that your response is complete. Ensure that the text is fully formed without any placeholders such as '[Conclusion]' or '[Placeholder]'. Make sure the reply is fully contained before these words and is not cut off prematurely. Thank you.