Someone obviously likes "Petulia," the 1968 film directed by Richard Lester that I recently watched on video. Leonard Maltin, in his "TV Movies and Video Guide," calls it one of the decade's best films, and a few of the contributors to the Internet Movie Database heap praise on the thing. If it isn't already obvious that I disagree with the admirers of the film, let me lay it out as clearly and as diplomatically as I can: this movie sucks.

I should now express my gratitude to the woman who stood guard at the box-office on that long ago Saturday night when I, a mere lad eager to see "Bullitt," was refused entry to the second-run movie house where "Petulia" was the supporting feature on the grounds that one of these films (I know not which) was considered too adult for an 11 or 12 year old who looked even younger. The following summer I learned that "Bullitt" bit (what a dreary bore of an action film), and now I know that "Petulia" is just as bad. It's one of those semi-psychedelic, woefully pretentious "60's movies" about an adulterous affair between a middle-aged man, a surgeon played by George C. Scott, and a swingin' hip chick played by--who else?--Julie Christie. It's the kind of movie in which NOTHING happens. Because the lives of the principals are as dull and uneventful as the lives of any working stiff, well, it has to be art, right?

When I say that "nothing" happens in "Petulia," I suppose I'm exaggerating just a bit. The film in the camera was not defective. It did capture SOMETHING, but that something doesn't add up to a whole lot. What we get are a whole bunch of disconnected scenes that are devoid of meaning but cut in such a way as to suggest that some deep truth is being conveyed. We see Scott being hit on by Christie outside a party at which they meet. Suddenly, we glimpse a child under the wheel of a car. After cutting back to the couple's conversation, director Lester shows us Scott at work in an operating room while Christie, perhaps unbeknownst to Scott, watches him through the door. Richard Chamberlain and Shirley Knight are hauled out from time to time as the adulterous couple's spouses but nothing they say or do has any significance. And then there's Joseph Cotton looking as though he belongs on a slab in the morgue. The whole thing is as arty as the director's two films with the Beatles but pretentious in ways that those films are not. Fact is, there was more art in those wild leaps the Fab Four performed in "A Hard Day's Night" than in a single frame of "Petulia."

Director Lester started in commercials and judging by most of his output, he probably should have stayed there. Like a TV commercial, "Petulia" shows signs of technical skill but no matter how impressive it may be to the eye, nothing can change the fact that, like a commercial, it delivers less than what it promises. It's like a car commercial that uses sexy images to equate the product with youth, beauty, and affluence when, for most people, the vehicle will provide nothing more than a means to get to the grocery store faster than they could on foot. It's a con job. So is this film.


There's a reason this "undiscovered gem" remains undiscovered: It's lousy. On just about all counts. Considering the talent involved, it's surprising how bad it is. How can a Richard Lester film be so boring? The characters are completely unsympathetic and underdeveloped. The scene between George C. Scott and Shirley Knight is designed to reveal the essence of their failed relationship, but it's so shallow, all I could focus on was who's gonna clean up the food he threw at her? Richard Chamberlain's portrayal of an inattentive, abusive husband is totally unconvincing, though the real fault is in the writing. And Julie Christie, looking beautiful in her prime, has to be referred to by everyone as a "kook" several times, otherwise we might not get it. Wasted too, are the amazing San Francisco locations. Nicholas Roeg had every opportunity to showcase this picturesque city, but instead fills the frame with ugly, dated interiors. This humorless look at troubled losers never gets off the ground.


Petulia documents the lives of two contemporary wealthy San Franciscans (1968) who, in mid-life, find themselves without purpose, desire, or direction. One is Archie (Scott) a physician in the latter stages of divorce. Why? It's never addressed directly; he just appears to have run out of steam. The other is Petulia (Christie), recently married to a very cold fish (Chamberlain). Against the backdrop of a soulless psychedelic San Francisco, Petulia pursues Archie in search of an affair.

This movie is a downer, albeit a very good downer. My only complaint is the very dated, very 60s directing style of Lester. It's not aging well. It IS a good movie, although I can't say I would recommend it to anyone.


Tearing down a coastal lane, Arthur flies out of the bend only to open his eyes again in hospital. While he was out cold, his unconscious spoke, revealing his hidden self as an emotional Pandora's box. In a dreamy, confused state he battles absurdity to unravel a lingering, youthful trauma.

Visually stunning and cut at video-clip speed, you are in for quite a rush of a film. Oscillating between captivating and horrific, "The Black Box" is really well made. There are countless little examples of beautiful attention to detail scattered around. No doubt because of this attention to detail, the imperfections reveal themselves as well, but they are forgivable. But not all missteps are.

Most importantly, the story-line is not good enough. The film can get away with a somewhat flimsy story for a good hour because of the captivating presentation, but towards the end, it is almost impossible not to be disappointed by the simplistic wrap-up. A real shame, considering the effort which went into this production. Do not hesitate to watch it none the less, as you will be rewarded with plenty an attentive detail and good use of imagery with the unfortunately paranoid José Garcia stuck in the middle.


A man gets a brain trauma in a car crash and as a result he is amnesiac; a nurse gives him a notebook telling him that while delirious he's said many strange things which came straight from his subconscious self, his black box and she's scribbled his words into this pad so it will help him to recover his memory. In this way his fragmentary and manic mental journey through his past begins: "Like a rat in a trap I'll be waiting for you. Taking punches for kicks I'll be bait for the kill. Was it all in my head, did you know all along that it's just you and me  we're against the world."  These song lines describe his cerebral voyage best. Visual array of The Black Box is of the kind I like best too: disconnectedly modernistic and fabulously surrealistic  in the finest way.


The Black Box is an engaging thriller, which grabs you right from the beginning with a car crash and has all the right plot elements. The problem is, as the other reviewer said, the finale is quite disappointing and leaves many questions unanswered.

Following his crash, Arthur Seligman is confronted with a wide variety of fragments from his subconscious and sets out to piece them together. What follows is an unnerving, inventive psychological journey that shares the paranoia and confusion of David Lynch with a suitably gritty, noir-like cinematography.

Yet the denouement neatly discards all the mysteries of the film and dismisses the loose ends of the multiple deaths, the police investigation and the questions thrown up from his subconscious.


Neither thriller (or very poor), nor fantastic (or missing the point), nor absolutely nothing maybe hardly an involuntary turnip...

It's beautiful to care about the shape of a picture, it's even great when we make it well and the greatest stuff it's when we've got a rather solid story... now it's not the case here, the shape is soooo bad, traveling used like amateur, pretty bad effects (see it to believe), overbids of camera movements, thanks to the director for the bad use of the provided means. When you try to make a Fincher's like, well you put all your guts in it, or do it à la classical way, we even have difficulty in being moved by the loud failure at the box office, at least the producers will think twice before giving money to Berry, especially when he tries to put on life a story so stupid. The whole would have been able to make a parody of Lynch but not at all, just a poor story too conventional, it tries to make too much with the heaviness of an elephant, let us not forget the flat and phoned development and you see them coming like hurricane, sterile intrigue with no big sense but the best is the funny finale, just stupid and miserable. I can't imagine how hard the scriptwriter of Memento will laugh by looking this failure. The themes and their so-called symbolism (such as the guilt and love) are treated without sharpness with " the elegance of a bulldozer ", all themes giving without any serious psychology, it's like heard some people at the counter of a pub on a Saturday night. We shall note Garcia's fine interpretation, a baaad from Cotillard (as usual, bah, when we aren't an actress it's more difficult) and poor Lecoq who, no chance buddy, had to play an improbable and ridiculous character.

This gives a bad B movies to put in "nanards"(ridiculous movies) of a conceited French cinema more and more sterile by trying to give itself some effects but finish like pure garbage.

what a waste of time and money


At its beginning, Gigantic (English title) seems a fun story of three friends united by their shared interest in girls, cars, and avoiding the responsibilities "the future"will invariably bring. By its end, Gigantic has become one of the most moving and charming films about the ties that bind that I've seen in recent years.

Hamburg, complete with its drab industrial foreshores and sometimes uninviting urban decay, is the setting for Gigantic and is as much as character as the three friends Lloyd, Walter and Rocco. It's no surprise, once we've trawled past the faceless apartment blocks and rusting waterfront sheds, that Lloyd wants out. What is a surprise is that he springs his news on his great friends with no time to prepare them for the shock. He leaves tomorrow, at sunrise.

In spite of their anger, and fear, Walter and Rocco go along with Lloyd's desire to have one great final night together. It begins fervently, excitingly, but as events go awry and daylight slowly inches over the horizon, the crushing reality of what is to follow sets in for the trio, who along the way also pick up their next door neighbour, the gorgeous but self destructive Tesla.

Debut director/writer Sebastian Schipper knows the value of understatement. Instead of stuffing his screenplay full of worthy but dull ruminations on the meaning and importance of friendships, he lets his characters do the talking for him. Boldly, Schipper uses a single, funereal piece of music over and over to signify moments of emotional crisis for his characters. The move is risky but pays dividends - Lloyd, Walter and Rocco don't have to say much to get across what they are really feeling. It's also a testament to the abilities of the actors playing these parts that you feel greatly for their pasts, presents, and especially futures.

The finale of Gigantic is heartbreaking, and deliberately ambiguous. Not only is it the perfect conclusion to the chaotic night before it, which is in itself a metaphor for the inherent turmoil of close friendships, it is enough to make you want to go out and phone every friend you haven't spoken to in years to find out how they are doing. Few films have the ability to move and entertain as well as say something about the pain and joy of simply being alive and knowing other people. Gigantic is one of them. It's a masterpiece.


I love this movie madly. . I saw it four days ago and it still hasn't let go of me. Floyd, Walter and Ricco have only one last night together to come to terms with the fact that Floyd will ship out on a freighter the next morning. They drift into that bleak Hamburg night like they would on any other, and the mundane becomes suddenly extraordinary as the reality of the impending farewell percolates through their celebration . What they leave behind in the night, is that total abandon you can only afford those few years between being a kid and suddenly being old.

This is one from the heart. It's got everything, the riotous humor and fun of outrunning the crew of an Elvis stuntshow, the tempo and jumpcuts of a strobelight punkclub, a heart as big as the V 8 Walter puts in his Ford Granada and the thrill of a deathmatch...in foosball !!

The film reminds us how intoxicating friendship can be and how good it can feel to be that drunk from a toast to a leaving friend. Like the perfect song: happy in its rhythm, sad in its melody. Floyd says early into the film something like" I wish everyone could have his own soundtrack, that there would always be music. So that if you're really down, there would still be the music...and when you're the happiest in your life the record would skip and the moment would never end..." After their last night, when Floyd looks up into the Hamburg sky one last time, the soundtrack to the film DOES skip and captures that perfect moment, the essence of parting, that loss that really isn't and that unbearable inevitability that tomorrow your best friends will be far away.

I can only hope that this total charmer finds a distributor in the U.S.. I'm sure it would find an audience somewhere in the same aisles that loved that "Big Wednesday" coming of age urgency, the tempo and irreverence of "Go", the unpretentious humor of "It's a jungle out there" or " No more Mr. nice guy" and the unspoken loyalty in any of the "Winnetou" movies. As for Sebastian Schipper the Director, whose eloquence in talking about his film ( and cars ) at the German Filmfestival in Los Angeles rivals the ease with which this film speaks to you - In a way I'm already sorry to see him becoming famous. He'll soon join Tom Tykwer as the posterboy for the new german film and I'm afraid he'll lose his genius eye and savant heart much like he lost his enthusiasm for foosball........


As Floyd' s probation has expired he's going to leave Hamburg the next day to see the world. So there's only one night left for him to say farewell to his best friends Ricco and Walter. The movie depicts the funny and sad adventures of the trio during that last night involving an argument with some die-hard Elvis fans, the most nerve-racking table-football match in film history and way too much alcohol.

The whole thing is so beautiful in a bittersweet way that you wish the film would go on forever. You want to see more about Ricco's family, about the barflies at Horst's and especially about Telsa, the girl next door (who is played incredibly cute and vulnerable by Julia Hummer in her film debut). But if a film is too short it's always a compliment, not a fault.

Sebastian Schipper in *his* debut as a director really knew what he was doing, although (or because?) he sometimes doesn't play by the established rules. For example he uses refreshingly little dialogue for a german film and he even lets it go on for a few more minutes after the last words have

been said, telling the end just with images. And those images are brilliant since the director of photography was Frank Griebe ("Lola rennt"). IMO the movie gets 9 out of 10.


The last night together for three friends in Hamburg, before one of them will board a ship to Africa. Crazy, wild, touching. A tribute to their friendship and friendship in general. And a tribute to that unique Northern German city as well. Plus a fantastic soundtrack which adds a lot to the movie: lots of electronic music, some rock, fast, pumping, but also minimal in the lonely moments of the story. Not to forget the great cast of these three unlike friends - and the girl, of course. And, last but not least: A tribute to passion, to what is called "Fernweh" in German, the need to get out of where you are right now and see the whole big world, without - in my impression - forgetting the loneliness that accompanies the traveler who doesn't quite know where he belongs (yet?).

What should I say? It's a wonderful small big movie.


When I first saw "Absolute Giganten" it instantly became my favourite. I just love this movie. It is wonderfully sad but at the same time it seems to keep a certain happiness that just moves you and makes you feel glad to be alive. Sebastian Schipper has made a beautiful but also very real film with wonderful actors and great music by The Notwist. Directors of the world do me a favour and give me more films like this one!


schipper has shown incredible diversity as a budding actor in many of tom tykwer's eclectic and nuanced german films. also had a minor, yet unforgettable, role in anthony minghella's 'the english patient', in the interrogation scene with willem dafoe. 'absolute giganten' marks his brave and confident debut, with superior directional and editing skills. definitely a new german director to keep a watch out for.


This film truly is exceptional in many ways. Exceptionally funny, exceptionally touching, melancholy and energetic, set in exceptionally cold ghetto and harbour districts of Hamburg. Three friends, Ricco, Floyd and Walter, live their easy lives there. All three of them are quite different, still tight together by a deep friendship. Although the quarter they live in, the harbour that pulsates continuously, the places they go to, although these all seem very surreal and unpleasant, as if illuminated by cold neon light, one never feels uncomfortable with that - due to the deep sympathy the three friends have for each other. They manage to have fun and analyzing thoughts about their situation at the same time. A film full of contrasts, both in pictures and in moods. A must-see!


Sebastian Schipper's debut-film is a nice little movie about some big issues, about friendship and about leaving friends. It's one of the flicks showing that it's possible to compensate a lack of big money through passion. Schipper tells the story of three friends and their last night together as one of them (Floyd) feels he have to leave town the next morning  probably forever. They decide to make the best out of it in nightly Hamburg... I think this movie is mostly focused on it's characters and on it atmosphere. The cinematography (everything looks a little bit cold) and the great soundtrack (mostly provided by Germany indie-heroes The Notwist") just support that atmosphere, which is kind of melancholic, not in a depressing but in a humorous way. The main characters are likable, the viewer can relate to them within a few minutes, even though only very basic informations concerning their backgrounds are given. That's also because one of the strong points of the film is the cast, there's a great chemistry between the main actors and they are able to transport a lot not only by words, but also by gestures and looks. So, as opposite to most other German films, not everything has to be discussed, some things just stay unsaid. So, don't expect impressing photography or any outstanding direction but if you're interested in sometimes sad sometimes funny 80 minutes, give it a try.


I already watched this movie some years ago today I watched it again and I really like this movie. The story tells about 3 friends living in hamburg the night before one of them will go to a ship to Africa and later singapore. It's their last evening they spend together and they have much trouble but fun too. A really nice scene is the kicker-scene where they play against the "snake", a really strange guy who plays kicker very well. This movie got so much emotion and is very funny too, so this proves that there are coming up some good talented directors, producers and actors. I hope to see more movies like this in the future, telling realistic stories from peoples lifes without spending so much money on movies to plaster bad stories. We have that movies from Hollywood all the time so I'm really glad to have movies like this one.

9/10


The plot of "Absolute Giganten" isnt even that interesting. The movie sets either. The thing which makes this movie unforgettable and worth to see it again and again, are the characters, the director could have never find better ones. I really hope that the synchronisation of the dialogues get even the half of the lovely style that is brought by the german characters, beacuse this is what makes me smile, remembering scenes where guys like "Dulle" act. Well-known actors would never have this genious individual style of laughing, screaming, talking. The tragic, melancholic style gives a perfect view which beauty lies in Hamburg in the early morning, driving around with your best friends, knowing that these times will be over soon. Highly-Highly recommended.


It does not need many words to show you what friendship is. Just watch this movie. --- Don't search for women here. They only play a small part. But it's enough to fall in love with Julia Hummer. --- Did you ever watch a morning come ? This film does. It changes from black to blue, pink and white.

And: did you notice that the car driver in the beginning (who races against the 3 friends) looks exactly like Harrison Ford ? In AMERICAN GRAFFITI, my other favorite, but many years earlier, another film about friendship, and friends getting older and going apart, Ford played the race driver, too.

The table-soccer game is shot like the pool games in THE COLOR OF MONEY. ABSOLUTE GIGANTEN took the best from the best, and it's already among them.


I really liked what I had heard of this movie and wanted to watch it for a long time. Now I finally got around to it and I was very disappointed. I still think this could have been a really nice movie and it had it's moments. But the dialog and some of the characters were just embarrassingly bad. The main character was very good and the two friends were OK, too (although I couldn't really stand Ricco) but most of the other characters were just completely unreal (or maybe I just don't know this world).

Don't think that I just don't like this movie because I'm used to Hollywood. My favorite movie is Lichter which is similar in mood and the way it is made but just a hundred times better.


I've just seen "Absolute Giganten" aka Gigantics yesterday. And I was stoked. A beautiful portrait of Hamburg and its silent heroes. Thank god Schipper didn't use any St.Pauli-cliches to make this movie even more "Hamburgish". I especially like the mixture of melancholy and a certain "live your life"-attitude. Absolute Giganten is the story of a night that is so ordinary and because of that so honestly that you're going to enjoy every minute of it. The three main characters are doing a great job especially Florian Lukas as Ricco. The table soccer scene is awesome shot. But my favorite scene is the one at this Elvis' stunt show place when Ricco shouts "Da geht einiges!". You need more good reasons to watch Absolute Giganten? There you go: German rapper Marcnesium from "5 Sterne Deluxe" has a cameo as "Rastaman". After the film you should stay in your seats because right in the middle of the end credits "Das Bo" is announcing the title track of the film following his announcement: "Wer hätte das gedacht" from Falkadelic (Doppelkopf), Das Bo (5 Sterne) & Ferris MC aka Fertich MC aka Marilyn Mongo.


what shall i say what hasn't been said so far. "absolute Giganten" is one of my all-time favorite flicks. This movie has everything, it deals with great friendship, melancholy, a lot of fun, tragic and love. The imagery is beautiful, the spare dialogues rock. Its set in Hamburg, and i can't imagine any other place that would have worked out that well with the plot and the feeling. Great actors as well, "DULLE, DULLE, DULLE" ;)

I envy all the people who haven't seen it so far, because they can experience it the first time. So go and watch it.

p.s. on october,26 2006 schippers second movie will hit the screen - "Ein Freund von mir"


After reading the raving reviews on this board, I was expecting to see I worthy piece of film-making. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near it. In fact, it was one of the drabbest, most worthless piece of junk I've seen for a long time. The director introduces us to three close friends, and the commotion the departure of one of them causes in the other two. To celebrate their last night, they find nothing better to do than to mess with an Elvis stunt group and play foosball. And that is the whole film, believe me. First of all, it should be a film from the heart, but where is the heart? We don't see it, or feel it... We don't care about these people, because, in fact, we don't know them. The director doesn't allow our knowledge. All we know is that they are a group of white trash, wandering about Hamburg. The reason and background for their deep friendship? We aren't allowed to have a glimpse of it, neither... For a simple comparison, see Fellini's I Vitelloni. See how the master manages to introduce his characters to us, and in the end we almost become friends with them. Seeing a movie like this, I think of the hungry children in Africa... The money spent on this trash would certainly serve them well... In short: don't waste your time. Time is the most precious thing on Earth. Do you want to see some 20 minutes of foosball playing on screen? Go and play foosball for real! It's more fun, I assure you! Why the summary "End of times...". I can't help it... When such a large group of people thinks this film is a masterpiece, it must be the end of time, when pure trash is taken for great art. Shame!


Yoko Matsushita's wonderful, offbeat manga is turned into a short, but satisfying animated series. The premise is simple enough: In a bureaucratic underworld, a group of supernatural detectives called Shinigami make certain the dead get where they are supposed to go. These shinigami are themselves dead - having been granted the right to become shinigami due to their unsettled pasts. The series consists of four separate story arcs, in which seemingly mis-matched partners Asato Tsuzuki and Hisoka Kurosaki learn to rely on each other and battle the series' primary villain, the sadistic Dr. Muraki. The animation is quite good, very fluid. The character designs are true to the manga and are excellent. The Japanese voice actors are top-notch. It has been released in North America as Descendants of Darkness and is an enjoyable blend of supernatural action and drama with some comedic overtones to keep things from getting too heavy. If you are looking for anime that offers something outside of the norm, give this series a try. I only hope the producers decide to release a second series covering later books of the manga


''Yami no Matsuei'''or ''Descendants of Darkness'' is a manga and anime series created by Yoko Matsushita with a shonen Ai/Yaoi content. I personally think that this is one of the most dramatic and romantic stories of all times, and look, I am not exactly an Yaoi worshiper. I hope that Matsushita continue with the manga, because it sadly remains on hiatus since 2003, and the manga is FAR superior then the anime series. I just think Tsuzuki and Hisoka are so damm cute together! Tsuzuki is my favorite, but even the villain,Muraki, that is a very bad guy, cannot make me hate him,because without him, many awesome moments would never happen. By the way, one of the things I love in this story is the fact that it alternates between very violent scenes, with others who are very sweet and light-hearted.


Yami no Matsuei is my all time favorite anime and manga. All the characters are well rounded and fascinating, especially the leads Tsuzuki and Hisoka. Both grew up in painful circumstances but through each other, are able to start healing. Some of the most beautiful and tragic scenes I'd ever witnessed are the ones between Tsuzuki and Hisoka. I actually cried at the end of volume 4 when Hisoka begged Tsuzuki to live for him. It was such a gorgeous moment because I knew without a doubt that these two really do love each other. One of the best villains, in my opinion, appears in this series. Dr. Muraki has to be the coldest and evilest man out there. There are no redeeming qualities about him but he's so fascinating. The connection/bond between Muraki and Hisoka is one of the most intriguing aspects of the show/manga. When Muraki raped and cursed Hisoka, he set upon him a seemingly unbreakable bond between them. Its rather horrifying how the most visually stunning scene in the anime is the rape scene. But what's brilliant about it is that its all done in Muraki's pov. He romanticizes the rape because he is a romantic. He's a sick romantic but nonetheless, he is one. But this is what makes him such a compelling villain. This is a definite must see for those who love great characters, great story lines and beautiful animation.


i've seen this show first through a music video and fell in love with it right away because of the good storyline and the worked out characters that are complicated with many problems and dark pasts.

the characters are mysterious and dark but you can connect with them so good that it is almost magical. you follow the story with the shinigami Tsuzuki Asato and Kurosaki Hisoka as they meet and slowly get a strong emotional band after a rough start there dark pasts and there enemy Muraki connect the two to work together to stop the evil maniac.

the show has a good balance between the dark moments and lights up when it's getting to tough.

you have to like yaoi to like yami no matsuei even if it's not shown that well in the beginning.

there are only 13 episodes and in my eyes that way to few for such a series. the story can't possible be told in only 13 episodes and the last episode calls up lots of questions that aren't answered but even with this little minor downside is yami no matsuei great to see

the show is based on the manga and even if it's so short it's a must watch for the fans of yaoi and anime

the darkest emotions combined with love, friendship and great unnatural powers is incredible


Being Icelandic I'm of course proud of most films made in Iceland, and they do get better every year. The only thing I sometimes criticise is that we, Icelanders, try to be TOO clever. We don't allow ourselves to just make pure action or pure comedy, but it seems we have to try to add some artistic flair to all our films. Hrafninn flygur is a viking-action film, which keeps your interest from beginning to end. The costumes and surroundings are beautiful, and the story is a good old revenge-your-parents tale, but with enough twists and side stories to keep ones interest fully. I have many friends around the globe, and Hrafninn flygur is one of the few films that I would recommend to anyone for pure entertainment value. Sadly, this film is not available any more, so we will just have to hope that one of these days they will re-release it.


"When the Raven Flies" death is coming....in this stark, brutal and gloomy tale of unrelenting vengeance. A Celtic Christian boy's family in Ireland is wiped out in a Viking raid, with his older sister carried off into sexual bondage. When he becomes a man, he tracks down the band of exiles all the way to Iceland where they await the death of their enemy, King Harald of Norway. One by one he patiently stalks each member of the band and cunningly turns their barbaric superstitions and brutish natures against them. The authenticity of the Icelandic setting and the grubbiness of the actors lend veracity to this depiction of this dark period in Scandinavian history in which the blood feuds lasted for generations. This film has a strangely compelling beauty threaded through its dominant theme of violence begetting violence in a self-perpetuating cycle.


When I first saw this marvelous film in 1999 in Russia, I could not believe my own eyes - in fact, I had never seen a single Icelandic film before that, this was the first and what a great sensation! This is a highly elegant, smoothly done and excellent work. The idea is pretty simple, Gest, the main hero, comes to take revenge for his slain parents. The whole story takes place in 900's, so Iceland is still a heathen country, god Thor is frequently mentioned and his one-eyed figure is also often addressed to by several characters. What really marvels there is the superb combination of the actors' play, impeccable nature, and the spellbinding soundtrack. This terrible, never ending, incessant rain that falls throughout the film is just another character - it adds to the gloomy picture and the dark feeling of the main hero. His revenge is slow, but irreversible, he does what he thinks he has to. And he succeeds. The whole film leaves a great, lasting and powerful impression. Watch it, it is a must!


Sure, this is a great movie. It has never been arrived in Italy but thanksgiving a friend studying in Iceland (thanks Ivan!), I can see it. I have found somewhat reminiscent of the atmospheres of Sergio Leone's "spaghetti-western" in this viking's REAL-life based film. And the name of director is, actually, Hrafn... Raven, of course! He has tried to destroy the viking's stereotypes typical of Hollywood, and the result is admirable and remarkably beautiful. The duel scenes are memorable... you MUST see it!


I remember seing this movie as a teenager when it was new. I still remember how the touching story burned inside of me, and the soft music that soothened the flames, created a epic memory. Since that first time, I have watched this movie at least ten times and it is STILL as great as the fist time. I really feels lika a "true story". Not like the rough (and often stupid) picture of vikings that Hollywood creates. I highly recommend anyone (above 11) to see this movie!


Powerful viking movie shot on Iceland, using a cowboy manuscript for sure! The mowie portrays the cruelty, tenderness, pride and extreme violence of that era, with great reality. Still there is that bit of the lone gunman out on the prairie,(here knife-thrower on the island Iceland) which just adds to the magnificent story of revenge. Gest (main character) comes to Iceland seeking revenge over the men who slaughtered his parents and kidnapped his sister in a viking raid in Ireland. Here he finds that his sister has married one of them.

Psychologically fast paced, as is the chain of events. Daring new use of music for this genre of movie, at times not all that successful.


The only Icelandic film I've ever come across. This and it's two (disappointing) sequels, that is. And what an OUTSTANDING film. Wow. The viking film to end all viking films. None of the others made since (Trees Grow on the Stones Too, 13 Warrior, The Pathfinder *yikes!*, the sequels to this film) have been up to much.

Five VIRTUES of When The Raven Flies:

1. Design wise: The viking clichés of (horned) helmets, shiny swords, dragon headed longboats, and the odd galloping stallions are replaced with an authentic, down-to-earth design: Fur caps, black/rusty cleavers/knives, small ocean going merchant vessels, and those curious Icelandic ponies. It is quite odd seeing the characters ride them. The viking warriors feet almost touch the ground, and they ride in a weird trotting style.

Which help bring us closer to what life could have been like back then.

And did I mention how the director has chosen memorable, gritty faces in almost every role? No tall blond semi-gods here, just dirty survivors in a harsh country/island.

2. Plot wise: An Icelandic film about vikings? A chance to show off Icelandic courage, virtue and heroism, right? Wrong. The hero is from IRELAND, rather, and his story is about a viking victim getting back at the perpetrators.

The plot requires minimum knowledge about Icelandic/Norwegian history. It's set during the late 800s AD. While the political power in Norway is being consolidated around one king, Iceland is being colonized by settlers, hunters, traders, political refugees...and Irish slaves. Iceland was considered a loose and distant part of the young kingdom.

The intrigue be a little hard to follow a first. Relax - it will all make sense later on (as characters dwindle in number).

3. Style wise: This gruesome and captivating story of revenge is - yes- a SPAGHETTI WESTERN. Every trick in the Spaghetti-Western handbook. And I mean it as a compliment.This is on par with Sergio Leone on a good day. And how suitable for the material. Talking is kept to a macho minimum. Closeups of frowning faces and steely eyes trying to penetrate the minds of opponents. Quiet. Sudden violent outbursts. Bittersweet ending. The main character, "Guest", isn't even presented with a proper name. Clint's nameless character in the Dollar movies, anyone?

This is an Arctic homage to Sergio Leone. Bravo!

4. Endurance: 24 years on and the film is still standing strong. Some bloods'n gore effects are little on the silly side, some sophomore editing. Some synth music and ditto drums upsets the mood a little at times. My DVD version has no stereo/surround sound. The picture is laser disc fine, not DVD or HD fine.

And those were all the flaws. I mean ALL the flaws. The\is film is so frikkin' strong none of the above really matters.

5. The director still hasn't made anything nearly as impressive as this film. The 1988 sequel, In the Shadow of the Raven, had a bigger budget/production. But lacks the Leone-ish sense of urgency. See for yourself. The last film in his trilogy, Den Kvite Viking, had moments of inspired casting/design/mood etc (a talking wooden Jesus effigy stands out), but is totally overwhelmed by a slow and unconvincing plot. Shame. The more reason to love and revere the original!

See it before they cast Nicholas Cage in a remake!


My first reaction when I finished watching this movie for the first time was, "Woah, Irish ninjas versus vikings? What can be cooler than that?" Strictly, Gest isn't a ninja-- I'm being a bit facetious-- but the throwing knives, the steely resolve, and the silent lurking can make up for the cultural gap. In all respects, this is an excellent movie. The acting is great, the plot is more than a simple revenge story, and the ending is powerful. In reflection, even the unusual music fits the story well. If you can get ahold of this movie, watch it, especially if you're not Scandinavian and don't know much about Scandinavian history or culture. It was this movie that got a lot of people I know interested in learning more about that region and that era of history.

And if you're the type who likes throwing-knives, lurking, complex revenge plots, and barbarian swordplay, this is still the movie for you.


Lovely movie, I actually had the luck to be able to see it while i was in school. I saw it several times and was facinated. Bloodvengance in Iceland, vikings that appear as vikings,and not with the silly horns or their helmets. Just the down and dirty,realistic fighting that was so common between clans in Iceland and the rest of Scandinavia during the iron-age and the early medieval era. The tale of vengeance and killing really grips me. I recommend this movie to anyone who want to see a movie that portrais, or at least gives a glimpse of what it could have been like, and is not destroyed by Hollywood's myths about vikings. For those of you who want to see what is perhaps the best movies about vikings and see this one and if you like it see the follow up In the Shadow of the Raven.


I am confused by the magnanimous praise for this film. First of all, let me respect it for its unsensational style. It expressed the everyday unromantic experience of what it must have been like then. In this way, it avoided Hollywoodism, but when I consider how the film-makers could have incorporated vast vistas as a cinematic expression of the isolation of these communities I was dismayed. These people lived in immense isolation, but all we were given 90 percent of the time were tight shots, and landscapes were generally presented as one section of the pebbly beach with some stark rocky islands off shore. And let us consider the opening (of the version I saw). There was no attempt at establishing the historical context. Instead, we got close shots that could have been anywhere, and certainly shot in the style for 'straight to video". Come on! The script was clever, with the potential for a great dramatic experience, but the director must have been limited by a highly restrictive budget, because it ended up looking like 'made for TV'. The synthesized music was occasionally effective but surely deeper chords would have created an ominous atmosphere. The hero did not really have any tense challenges. He seemed to cruise through it all. While I sort of liked him, I never had a sense of his jeopardy. In short, there was no dramatic tension. In this sense, there was an echo of some of Clint Eastwood's movies, but without the stylishness. There was an assumption that we were on the protagonist's side, but why deprive us of his human vulnerability as he seeks revenge? I feel that the writers deserve a bigger budget to prove to us that they can create a truly cinematic experience rather than a small dimension TV drama. I have not seen the subsequent 2 parts of the trilogy.


I don't know if you've ever seen a movie about vikings, but as far as i know they are few. Of those I've seen this and it's predecessor are the only "true" viking movies.

This movie has pretty bad image and sound quality which is understandable since its old. But it wins my heart for it's story, it follows a kind of norm in viking tales, basically an eye for an eye.

I am no expert in vikings or history but i have read a lot about them and many sagas (if not all) from the "Edda", anyways i liked this movie because it feels natural and real.

Some warnings though:

1. It may not be so interesting for you if you're not interested in vikings.

2. They speak Icelandic and the one i saw had Swedish subtitles only, so beware, you may not understand a word.


I suggest that this movie should not be to closely associated with "Vikings". It is an artistic interpretation of a certain stage in the evolution of societies in the most northern reaches of Europe, in which the "Viking" culture is an element-inasmuch as it refers to a seafaring population. Once established in new territory, the history of evolution seems to follow the same lines as in Western Europe. I suggest background reading of the Icelandic Sagas as a start-no doubt you will find referrals to Norwegian, Swedish and Danish annals as well. This comment is placed in the hope that a great effort, and a great result, shall be remembered some more years-BECAUSE I WANT TO HAVE THIS, AND THE FOLLOWUP, IN MY LIBRARY. And I haven't the faintest where to get hold of them...

BRGDS K


Gest goes to Iceland in 894 to avenge the killers of his parents. There are some memorable moments in this film. The opening credits scene revealing the Icelandic coast with the powerful music lets us know we're in for something different. Gest is heavily influenced by The Man with no Name in Leone's westerns and Einarsson does a good job portraying such a figure.The opening scenes are the best, especially the 'Tungur Knivur' scene. The film goes on too long and I didn't like the sanctimonious message in the end especially when the director's commentary on the DVD confirmed that he was trying to show the futility of violence. If somebody walks all over you you gotta stand up for yourself. It was also unrealistic. Gest would really have held on to those knives considering it was ninth century Iceland and how the hell was he going to get home.


I bought this movie off of ebay thinking it could be a well made viking movie made by actual Scandinavians, but I was wrong. Now I regret watching because it was so awful. The cinematography was uninspired, the acting was OK, and the action boring. Never once do you get to see the harsh and beautiful Icelandic landscape (I've been there), only the shore and the vikings' huts. There are some interesting characters, but they were never developed. The Irishman seems like a sadistic killer since he seems to kill every viking he meets, how could he know which ones pillaged his village? He even throws a knife into a guy's mouth as he yawns, what did that guy ever do to deserve that? The action was also terrible, the Irishman kills by throwing knives and never actually confronts his enemies. The vikings themselves use strange machete looking swords. If I wanted to make a film taking place in Iceland I would first show off the Icelandic landscape, create interesting characters who have motives, and then show more of the viking culture itself: the weaponry and armor, the religion, the sailing, the long-ships, etc. 'Revenge of the Barbarians' fails at all this and was a disappointment. If you want to see the Icelandic landscape I would recommend seeing 'The Viking Sagas,' which is a bad movie, but bad enough that it's entertaining. If you want to see something that's actually an interesting movie, though Hollywood, see 'The Vikings' or for something more lighthearted 'The Longships'. I haven't see this year's 'Beowulf and Grendel' but it sounds like an interesting film. See 'Revenge of the Barbarians' if you want to see how NOT to make a movie about the Vikings.


I had never heard of this movie before and had low expectations. However, I was amazed at what a wonderful movie it is. Not only is it "Hitchcocky" and suspenseful, it is also humorous and touching. Jane Wyman and Richard Todd did particularly well in this film. I do not usually like Marlene Dietrich, but I have to admit that she did a splendid job as the flamboyant theater star. This movie is set in London, and Hitchcock did a wonderful job of picking out the crew's British actors and actresses such as Alistair Sim and Michael Wilding. Surprisingly he even gave his own daughter, Patricia Hitchcock, a bit part towards the end. It is too bad "Stage Fright" is not more well known, and I highly recommend it.


black comedy that boasts great performances from Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Michael Wilding, Alistair Sim, Sybil Thorndike, Joyce Grenfell, Kay Walsh & Richard Todd. Great use of silent sequences, close ups, slow motion, black humor, and mood lighting, Hitch's most underrated talkie (Easy Virtue is is most underrated silent film), this murder mystery offers all kinds of plot twists and sly humor even though you know the outcome long before it unspools. It's irrelevent. Fun all the way, including the opening theatre curtain and the closing one (thump). Dietrich is a splendid bitch, and this may be the best performance Wyman ever gave. Also look for Everley Gregg, Patricia Hitchcock, Miles Malleson and Ballard Berkeley. Dietrich's final close up and the coach scene with Wyman and Todd are gems. Sim and Thorndike are hilarious, as is the always wonderful Grenfell as "Lovely Ducks." A Must See.


This movie gets a very much undeserved amount of flack for being a lessor work of Hitchcock. I can see why it might not appeal to some people, being character driven rather than having children being chased by rampant birds or someone being attacked by a serial killer in an old lady's wig. The performances here are all excellent especially Jane Wyman and Marlene Dietrich as Charlotte Inwood, perhaps the laziest girl in town but also the most flamboyant. The secondary characters are also in fine form and make memorable impressions that adds to the enjoyment factor of this film. I don't know why some people feel tricked after watching the movie, seeing and believing are two different things, especially in an Alfred Hitchcock movie!


Often considered to be one of Alfred Hitchcock's lesser known films, "Stage Fright" has unfortunately gotten a bad wrap. Even mediocre Hitchcock is better than most movies ever get, though. And this one is a solid, entertaining picture. With an eclectic cast one doesn't expect to see together, each diverse actor provides a little something for everyone. And with Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Richard Todd and Michael Wilding how can you go wrong?

Wyman convincingly plays a drama student who gets involved over her head in a purely Hitchcockian case of murder. When her ex-lover Todd is suspected of killing Dietrich's husband, Wyman hides him and helps him allude the police. Meanwhile, Wyman disguises herself as Dietrich's maid to help find evidence to save Todd's freedom. Wyman falls into a dangerous trap, and danger surrounds her.

Disappointingly underdeveloped as it starts, "Stage Fright" eventually turns into a first-rate thriller. While Wyman has been better, Dietrich is hilariously catty and Todd is wickedly suspicious. This is undoubtedly a Hitchcock film all the way around, but adding a nice twist to the formula is a soaring, romantic soundtrack. A seriously satisfying film, "Stage Fright" hits most of the right notes.


What a great flick. At times ill-paced, but the performances more than make up for it. What's not to love? Doe-eyed Jane Wyman shifts effortlessly between the roles of aspiring dramatist to lovestruck protectress of Richard Todd to infiltrating false maid of Marlene Dietrich. Managing also to string along Michael Wilding, as the ubercool Inspector "Ordinary" Smith, she might sound like some cold calculating wench who uses up people like Marlene goes through hats. But that wouldn't be strictly accurate. Her Eve Gill is sweet and naive, but her gentler qualities are tempered with a genuine acting talent that allows her to juggle identities with the slyness of a fox-chameleon hybrid. The scene at the garden party when she switches from Dietrich's cockney maid to Smith's innocent date with every turn is delightful.

It is the masterful presence of the great Alastair Sim, however, that makes Stage Fright one of Hitchock's most enjoyable to watch. Few actors have his ability of making the most average of dialouges sound like a powerful oration, and as Eve's doting father, he makes the movie. His Commodore Gill is always at the ready to harbor a fugitive, clip off a snappy witicism, or scrounge blackmail money for his beloved daughter. He is equally at home playing comic relief as he is to serving as the plot glue that makes Eve's capers possible. But live with his wife? Thank you, no! He is content to live on his boat. Whether he is staging an amusing diversion to aid Eve, dispensing sage bits of fatherly advice, or merely strolling out in public, the man bleeds coolness with every move.

Some can argue that Stage Fright gives but an average treatment to the usual whodunnit murder-suspense formula that Hitchcock (and countless others) have used. This is perhaps true. But compared to the whole lot of crappy facsimile suspense films made since 1950, Stage Fright is quicker to entertain than most.

Be sure to check it out if you want to see Hitch cast his own daughter Patricia in the supporting role of "Chubby Banister." Is that some kind of sick joke or was that name flattering in the fifties?

P.S.-- I can't watch Marlene Dietrich anymore and not be reminded of Madeline Kahn's Teutonic Titwillow. Is there some free therapy I can get for this?


I like this film. It has gotten a bad reputation due to Hitchcock's daring to break another film convention about the truth of a flashback. Hitchcock had already broken other conventions over the years, some being of a technical variety (the nine minute uncut takes on ROPE for instance). Here the film begins with Richard Todd describing what he claims happened to the murdered man to ex-girl friend Jane Wyman. Subsequently we learn that the explanation is not totally true.

What I find interesting about this particular issue is that the same people who denounce Hitchcock for cheating on this probably have found other films acceptable despite similar "cheating". Take Billy Wilder's WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. We hear Tyrone Power give Leonard Vole's version of what happened to the rich elderly woman (Norma Varden), about how they met, about what he was doing on the night she was murdered. We do not SEE the actual view of his activities for the night of the murder, but we accept his comments - until the end of the film shows what happened. Also check out Kurasawa's film classic RASHOMON, where we see flashbacks of five people who show "what happened" and at the conclusion we really don't know if we heard the truth or if everyone has lied. The same can be said of the American remake of RASHOMON, THE OUTRAGE. Even a musical comedy, LES GIRLS, leaves us all guessing at the end.

Yet Hitchcock was condemned for his cheating. I think he should be praised for his daring, for this film (of all Hitchcock's movies) develops in a unique way. Wyman is determined to prove the truth of Richard Todd's story, and keeps meeting criticism and common sense from her father, Alistair Sim, and from the police led by Michael Wilding, who don't believe him. And as a matter of fact, at the conclusion, it turns out that some, if not all of Todd's flashback has elements of truth in it.

Hitchcock told Francois Truffaud that he saw STAGE FRIGHT as an opportunity to work with some great British character actors (Sim, Joyce Grenville, Sybil Thorndyke, Kay Walsh). The film was definitely lower budgeted than other films (SPELLBOUND, even THE PARADINE CASE) that he had recently made. The most expensive aspect was working with Dietrich which was costly for her salary and her designer clothing. But Hitchcock wanted a chance to work with Dietrich here (just like he had made MR. AND MRS. SMITH to work with Carole Lombard in 1939). The results were quite good. The British character actors did the most with their parts (including Todd, who shows a nervousness and uncertainty in most of the film that is suggestive of possible insanity at the end). Dietrich also, in her closing moments on the screen, shows a bitterness and hatred that I don't think she ever showed in any other film role. Jane Wyman was criticized by Hitchcock for insisting on dressing up as the film progressed. However she does show a resourcefulness and pluck not usually seen in most of her movies. On the whole the film works pretty well to me.


SPOILERS: Like any good film enthusiast, I consider Hitchcock one of the best directors who ever lived, right along with the likes of Fellini, Bergman, and Welles. Hitch consistently made films that were not only as entertaining as a film can possibly get, but also films that were extraordinarily intellectual and human. Films such as Lifeboat, Rear Window, and Vertigo work as art as much as any other films ever made, studying the human condition and utilizing the tools of cinema to the utmost.

Hitch was also the most prolific film artist of all time. He made over 50 films. He made more masterpieces than any other filmmaker, too. Several, such as Vertigo, Psycho, and Rear Window, are bona fide masterpieces. No one in their right mind would disagree with their status as some of the best films ever made. But everyone has that one Hitchcock film that they feel that they understand better than anyone else, and always claim that it deserves to belong in the same status as the more accepted masterpieces. I seem to have discovered several. In fact, every time I see one of his less popular films, I think that it has gotten a bum rap. Rope is my favorite underrated Hitchcock film, but I think that it is starting to be accepted by the masses more. Two other great ones that are less popular are Lifeboat and I Confess; Lifeboat is well respected by Hitchcock fanatics, but I Confess is usually dismissed. This sort of dismissal happens because of financial failure upon first release. Hitch certainly was an artist, but, if you've read the Truffaut interview book, you realize that he took a film's financial success or failure very personally.

Now we come to Stage Fright. I don't think that it was an enormous failure, but it was also not an enormous success. Truffaut says something like: "this film neither added to nor took away from your reputation." The main complaint is that the opening flashback is a lie, and that audiences could never accept that. I think that that technique works better now than it may have in 1950. It was sort of daring, but it failed at the time. Although most people still don't want to ever think that the characters in a film are lying, you still see it, especially in neo-noir (think Chinatown, Body Heat, etc, although those aren't flashbacks, per se). Truffaut also derides it for being a whodunit, which Hitch did not like. I don't think that Stage Fright is at all a whodunit. We assume through the entire film that Marlene Dietrich is unquestionably guilty in the crime.

There are just a few very minor problems in the film, most of them stemming from the trick ending: trick endings are in style right now, but they hardly ever work. This one does, mostly, but as soon as we realize we've been tricked, just as happens at the end of The Sixth Sense, a very good film otherwise, we begin to go over the earlier events to see if there was any cheating. There is in Stage Fright, and it loses a tiny bit of credibility from this. The other main problem is just how the police deal with the criminals at the end. It's hardly believable, and they kill the main criminal in a very gruesome way that I would think would get them reprimanded by their superiors (although it was cool). Anyway, it's nowhere near as bad as the way the police act at the end of Hitch's next film, Strangers on a Train, where a cop shoots randomly at a crowd (with the criminal in it) and accidentally kills an innocent man!

The gold of this film comes in the complex situations and characters. One reason why Hitch's films stand so far beyond the run-of-the-mill thriller is that his characters are so well developed. The actors in Stage Fright are also superb. Jane Wyman, the main character, has an extraordinarily complicated role, where she has to act at several different levels (she plays an actress who believes that her skills can help her learn more about a murder); she pretends that she's someone else, and as she meets more people, the more difficult it becomes to handle the situation. She also "switches horses in midstream," where she begins to doubt her relationship with the man whom she is helping and to fall for a detective on the murder case simultaneously. Richard Todd plays a man framed for murder. One excellent twist in the script is that his character is not intelligent. We're so used to characters being as astute as Sherlock Holmes in mystery films, but he's an illogical hothead who takes very stupid risks. Marlene Dietrich has a lot of fun here playing a demon-goddess. She's just hilarious, trying really hard to act depressed over her husband's death (and she's one of the most terrible singers you'll ever hear!). I love how she controls everyone in the film, even those who are trying to be her enemies. You just can't refuse Marlene! Possibly the most memorable and amusing performance in the film is that of Alastair Sim, most famous for playing Ebenezer Scrooge a year later. He's hilarious as Wyman's father. Micheal Wilding, playing the detective who is falling for Wyman, is also great, especially when he finds that she is betraying him and may have only been using him. There are a few very memorable cameos, too, including the "bibulous gent," a turtle-like man who offers Wyman comfort, and the shooting gallery matron (the whole shooting gallery scene is great).

Stage Fright has been trampled by the more outstanding Hitchcock pictures. It is a small gem, not boring in any way. It deserves to be rediscovered by more people.


"Stage Fright" has become one of my favourite Hitchcock movies. Even though it's not in the same league as "Psycho" or "Rear Window", it's still an extremely delightful piece of film making.

What makes it so enjoyable is the wonderful cast, which was mostly unknown to me before. Jane Wyman makes a lovely heroine for the audience to care about, and Marlene Dietrich is a riot as the stage diva, although I was a bit skeptical toward her at first. The scenes between Alastair Sim and Sybil Thorndike as Wyman's eccentric parents are hilarious. Richard Todd is perhaps a bit weak as the suspected murderer, but not distractingly so.

All in all, I find this a far more preferable watching experience than some of his more acclaimed films like "Notorious" or "The Birds" which are kind of cold and sterile. See it if you have the chance.


--Minor Spoilers--

While reading user comments for other Hitchcock movies, I came across this phrase often, generally in association with TOPAZ:

"This is by far Hitchcock's worst since STAGE FRIGHT..." or something to that effect.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless blabbering Hitchcock fan, but I found Topaz and Stage Fright to be much better than the press they've gotten.

Stage Fright has been accused of being boring, although I suspect this is because there is no violence at all until the very end of the movie, and instead it deals quite a bit with dialogue and character development.

At first, I thought the acting was overdone, but 30 minutes into the movie, I didn't even notice. And of course, I can't say enough about Alisair Sim's performance as Eve (Jane Wyman)'s father. He was amazing in this movie.

I also thought Stage Fright contained quite a bit more of Hitchcock's dark sense of humor (note the bar and shooting gallery scenes, and Marlene Dietrich's comments while trying on her funeral gown). Absolute hilarious!

Overall the movie is a keeper. It certainly isn't as good as PSYCHO or THE BIRDS or any of his other 50s-60s classics, and Hitchcock doesn't do much of his fancy camerawork (although the mingling through the bar was very nice), but this movie is surely no worse than JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK or TORN CURTAIN. And the usual Hitchcockian plot twist is always a nice touch.

STAGE FRIGHT is probably one of Hitchcock's most forgotten and most underappreciated movies.

9/10


This movie plays more like something Hitchcock would have directed in the thirties. It also have the misfortune of being released while he was in his prime, so it comes off archaic for the master. I rather enjoyed it though. I thought Jane Wyman had considerable charm and innocence to play her character and make us care for her. Marlene Dietrich plays her part well, and Alastair Sim gives nice comic relief as the father to Wyman's character.

Its true that the movie cheats and gives us a surprise ending that really doesn't play with what we're given. This is a flaw and will forever keep this movie from being a masterpiece. However, it is lite viewing, and it has some excellent and charming scenes. The scene of Eve and the Inspector in the back of the taxi was rather nice, at least I thought so. Plus it has more humor than some of his other works. It certainly isn't rear window, but its worth watching for Wyman's fun and interesting performance. Its nice to see a heroine more so than a hero in something of Hitchcock's. Plus you can find out a hazard of the safety curtain that we hadn't thought of. 8 out of 10.


Deep down, this is a film about the way people use each other. Whereas many films present us with love triangles, 'Stage Fright' explores the sharp edges of a love pentagon, in which all five characters are engaged in subterfuge and manipulation. At the heart of it lies Richard Todd's Jonathon Cooper, ruthlessly playing on Eve's affection for him in order to protect both himself and the woman he really loves, Charlotte. However, actress Charlotte is using him just as he uses Eve, whilst behind his back she's involved with her manager Freddy. And sweet little Eve, actress in training, is far from innocent - she lies to the charming 'Ordinary' Smith whilst concealing the man she thinks she loves - Jonathon.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about 'Stage Fright' is that this daisy chain of betrayal is dismantled with barely a broken heart in sight. Unflinching insights into emotional cruelty and power imbalances in relationships are one of the most under-appreciated aspects of Hitchcock's films ('Rebecca', 'Notorious', 'Vertigo' and 'Marnie' in particular, although even the minor barbs James Stewart throws at Grace Kelly in 'Rear Window' hit the mark squarely), but here one of the most calculated betrayals in all of his work has absolutely no emotional resonance. Eve has already conveniently fallen into the arms of Smith, so there's no sting when she learns of Jonathon's deceit. Charlotte's betrayal of Jonathon carries no greater weight, because by this point the viewer has no empathy left for him. Only 'Ordinary' Smith's rather hurt reaction to learning the truth about Eve means anything, but it feels like a betrayal of a much slighter nature - she's a well-intentioned deceiver. Compare with the treachery of another Eve, in the similarly comic and 'lightweight' 'North by Northwest', and the sheer toothlessness of this film's emotional unravelling becomes apparent.

In fact, the only emotional impact made in the film's finale is by Marlene Dietrich's Charlotte Inwood, mulling over her actions in a beautifully shot scene. Dietrich's sheer luminosity can't help but draw the viewer in, and the direction certainly favours her here. The perversity of empathising with this great manipulator probably appealed to Hitchcock, who would later do the same with Robert Walker's Bruno Anthony and Anthony Perkins's Norman Bates, and I think it's possibly the one great scene in the film (if there's another, it would be Dietrich's self-choreographed rendition of 'The Laziest Gal in Town').

Mention of Walker and Perkins draws attention to the great failing of this film, which is the character of Jonathon Cooper. Richard Todd has been much criticised for his stiff portrayal, and I think it's fair to say he's rather a plodding performer, even if he's never truly bad - although his psychosis under the stage is tremendously effective. The real problem is the script, which denies the character a sense of humour. Almost all of Hitchcock's villains are witty and charming (certainly all his best ones are), but Jonathon is charmless. This is a real problem in a comedy thriller where almost every character has a comic appeal - even Kay Walsh's character has her own sour humour. By contrast, Jonathon seems repellent - he isn't entertaining in the way everyone else is, so we don't root for him. We should surely empathise with Eve's desperation to clear his name, but he doesn't seem worth the effort. Whilst Dietrich is appealing even at her most cruel (a true Hitchcockian villain), Todd is unappealing even in innocence.

The other performances range from the adequate (Wilding, just a little too lightweight as Smith) to the wonderful (Alistair Sim, it scarcely needs to be pointed out, shares the comic spoils with Dietrich, and both Sybil Thorndike and Kay Walsh do great things with limited roles. Joyce Grenfell, meanwhile, somehow turns an irrelevant bit of comic business into a transcendent piece of physical comedy). Jane Wyman seems a little uncertain in places, but funnily enough I think she's most effective in her 'Doris' guise, able to show off her comic skills, and sparking nicely with Dietrich.

The false flashback is a neat gambit, but unfortunately it unbalances the beginning of the film - Eve is sidelined for too long - and forces the script into some rather ugly expositional dialogue. However, the rising curtain is a lovely conceit.


Forget the shot in "Notorious" where the camera slowly descends from the second floor to Ingrid Bergman standing in the foyer and a tight closeup of the key in her hand.

Feast your eyes, instead (and try to figure out how cinematographer Wilkie Cooper shot it) on the sequence that begins outside Charlotte Inwood's residence, as Richard Todd gets out of his car, goes up the steps, opens the door, steps inside and . . . as the camera stays on his back, now inside the home . . . shuts the door behind him, starts up the stairs, reaches the second landing, crosses to Charlotte's bedroom door and enters. One continuous shot from exterior to interior and up the stairs. No cutaways. Amazing.

The shot was echoed years later in reverse, in "Frenzy," where the camera pulls back from a murder, goes down the stairs and out the door onto the street.

So why, one wonders, does Hitchcock settle for a cheap double-exposure shot of Dietrich in closeup in the foreground while Richard Todd is at the window in the background, when Gregg Toland had already achieved such "deep focus" shots without "trick photography" nine years earlier in "Citizen Kane?"

Yes, Jane Wyman's American accent is problematic. A glancing reference to her having been "educated" in America doesn't solve the fact that she's supposed to be British.

Marlene Dietrich is 50 and looks it. She actually looks younger seven years later in "Witness for the Prosecution." No matter.

The acting is superb all around.

The infamous "lying flashback" at the beginning seems far less troublesome to today's audiences than it did when the film was released, perhaps because we're more accustomed to films playing tricks with time, now.

The character development is exceptional -- particularly the relationship between Jane Wyman and Michael Wilding. (Quick: name another film starring Michael Wilding. You can't.) Hitchcock takes his time with the characters. Wyman and Wilding in the taxi on the way to the garden party are wonderful.

Is it necessary for Hitchcock to insist on superimposing a bloodstain on the doll's dress to let us know what Alastair Sim is thinking? No.

But then, when you've delivered a shot as spectacular as that long dolly of Richard Todd from exterior to interior and up the stairs, you can do anything you darn well please.


This superb film incredibly contains Marlene Dietrich and Alistair Sim among its great cast, in a blend of Hitchcock thrills and chills, humour and even musical interludes. It is mostly overlooked due to it's original 'failure' with fans and critics caused mainly by misguided hatred of a plot device used in the film. Also people fail to cope with the very different moods the film moves between. From whimsical British comedy to chilling psychological drama. It may not be one of Hitchcock's perfect 10/10 best but is easily 9 1/2 out of 10.

Hitchcock did something in the film, as he did in his classic Sabotage, which upset filmgoers and critics because it was 'not the done thing'. I wouldn't wish to spoil the film for a 1st time viewer by saying what this was but it is mentioned in the spoilers section of trivia on this films IMDb homepage. It is a mistake, I feel to overlook this film, especially due to this 'unconventional plot device'.

I find the 'unconventional plot device' in Sabotage one of a great many highlights of the film and it lifts it beyond what it would have been with the predictable/conventional resolution of that scene. The same is true in Stage Fright. Filmgoers who cannot cope with being confused by clever directorial choices are people I pity. The surprising, unusual aspects of this plot are terrific and Hitchcock was entirely correct in his choices which hugely add to the impact of the film.

Apart from all that Stage Fright is simply thoroughly entertaining. It is very very funny with Alistair Sim as brilliant and hilarious as ever in a great role for him as well as an entirely satisfying cast. Marlene Dietrich is superbly cold in a wonderful, striking addition to her acting career and sings a classic Dietrich style song. The twists from humour to chilling suspense make terrific enthralling moments.

A highly unusual and near perfectly executed film.


In London, the aspirant actress Eve Gill (Jane Wyman) and her friend Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd) are fleeing from the police in her car to her father's boat two hours far from the city. Eve has a crush on Jonathan that tells her that a couple of hours later, his mistress and actress Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich) had come to his apartment with her dress covered of gore and telling that she had killed her husband. Jonathan decided to go to her apartment to bring a new dress for Charlotte, but her maid saw him in the crime scene and called the police that are chasing him as prime suspect. Eve's father Commodore Gill (Alistair Sim) lodges Jonathan at his house and the man destroys the dress that is the evidence of the murder. Eve decides to investigate by herself to prove Jonathan's innocence and gets closer to Charlotte, working as temporary maid. Meanwhile Detective Wilfred Smith (Michael Wilding) that is in charge of the case befriends Eve and they fall in love for each.

"Stage Fright" is a delightfully naive film of Alfred Hitchcock and the last in his British phase. Jane Wyman performs a naive wannabe actress that decides to investigate a murder with her eccentric father and unravels the truth. Marlene Dietrich is the manipulative actress and singer for whom men fall and are capable of anything to be with her. Romance and humor are present along this suspenseful story in this minor movie of Hitchcock. This time, the cameo of Alfred Hitchcock is on the street, the pedestrian in London that crosses Eve. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Pavor nos Bastidores" ("Funk in the Backstage")


Alfred Hitchcock made this highly enjoyable and under-rated divertissment in 1950 after a run of glum movies in the second half of the forties but before embarking on his richest period in the fifties. It also brought him back to Britain for a very old-fashioned comedy-thriller that wouldn't have looked out of place among his thirties' thrillers. It's also the one with the twist that turns out to be Hitchcock 'cheating' or, shall we say, breaking the rules and detractors of the movie haven't forgiven for it. There is also no flab in the movie whatsoever; it kicks off with a murder and subsequently develops into a good old chase yarn.

The principal parts are taken by Jane Wyman, cast against type and underplaying nicely, and Marlene Dietrich in one of her theatrical grande-dame roles, (in this one she sings 'The laziest gal in town'). The men are slightly frenetic Richard Todd and a bland Michael Wilding but it is the supporting cast of marvelous British character players who are the best value and give the film its bounce. We have Alastair Sim and Sybil Thorndike, Kay Walsh and Joyce Grenfell and a wonderfully sleazy turn from an unlikely Miles Malleson. Set-pieces are few, (the doll at the Garden Fete is one of them), but as I've said, this was a divertissment and very good fun it is, too.


"Stage Fright" is an entertaining and mostly lighthearted mystery; perhaps its themes are less consequential than in other Hitchcock films, but it still delivers a good time. It utilizes its theatrical setting well, contrasting truth with artifice, and acting with reality. And its characters are interesting and well-developed.

Musical-comedy star Charlotte Inwood's (Marlene Dietrich) husband has been murdered, and her lover Jonathan (Richard Todd) fears that she committed the crime and is trying to frame him for it. While he hides from the police, Eve (Jane Wyman), an aspiring actress who has a crush on Jonathan, poses as Charlotte's maid in order to get the evidence that will clear his name.

At least, that's how things seemto us, and to Eve. But at the end of the movie, we learn that someone lied at the beginning, twisting the facts, and the real situation is different. Though this "lying flashback" is widely considered to have caused "Stage Fright"'s failure, it actually feels necessary to me. This movie needs a twist to distinguish it, or else it would be just an amusing but forgettable mystery.

Perhaps the title is misleading: there's not a lot of "fright" in "Stage Fright." It's a modest but enjoyable movie that feels more akin to Hitchcock's low-budget British movies than his Hollywood spectaculars. As in "The Lady Vanishes," the heroine is a spunky brunette instead of a cool blonde; the hero (Detective Smith, played by Michael Wilding) is likable but not stereotypically "heroic" or dashing; and there are some good comic roles for British character actors. Alastair Sim and Sybil Thorndike are hilarious as Eve's crazy parents.

Though Wyman is a bit too obviously American, she makes for an appealing heroine; it's especially fun when she has to switch between playing Eve and posing as the Cockney maid, Doris. There's a fascinating mash-up of talents at work when Charlotte sings "The Laziest Gal in Town": song by Cole Porter, husky vocals by Dietrich, costumes by Christian Dior, direction by Hitchcock. And though Dietrich's acting seems unconvincing at firstshe's best as a cool and implacable diva, not a distraught widowwhen you learn that the first scene was a lie, everything truly falls into place.


The most famous thing about "Stage Fright" is without a doubt its final plot twist; having seen the film twice now, I can say that the twist almost holds up, but there is one scene, or more accurately one line, that cheats (Todd and Dietrich meet in her dressing room, alone, and she says the word "accident"). Two other characteristics of this movie are its brilliant camera work (especially at the start, when Todd goes into the house where the dead body is), and its well-written dialogue. Unfortunately, there is less of the former and more of the latter - the movie is overly talky. Jane Wyman appears to be bland at the start, but as the film goes on and she has to assume all these different identities, she gets better. Richard Todd is effective in his key scenes (the close-ups of his eyes at the finale). Michael Wilding is likable as the detective and Alastair Sim is delightfully dry as Wyman's father (at one point she says "I'll make her talk. It will be one woman to another". Sim's response: "Yes. An impressive situation at any time"). The one performance I didn't like was Marlene Dietrich's - it was old-fashioned even by 1950 standards. But maybe that's what Hitchcock had in mind. (**1/2)


Alfred Hitchcock's "Stage Fright" is less well known than his other films of this era (the film was made in 1950). However, it's very entertaining and quite good, starring Marlene Dietrich, Jane Wyman, Michael Wilding, Richard Todd, Alistair Sim and Sybil Thorndike. Set in the atmosphere of London theater, Dietrich plays Charlotte, a stage star whose husband is murdered in their house. She begs her boyfriend Jonathan (Todd) to help her, as she is certain she will be accused. Worse, she had blood on her dress. Jonathan takes the dress and goes to Charlotte's home to get her another one. However, on the way out, the maid sees him. He panics, Charlotte panics, and Jonathan takes off with the aide of a young actress (Wyman) who's in love with him. She takes him to her father's (Sims) boat so he can hide out. She returns to London and finds out that indeed, Jonathan is the prime suspect. She meets a detective on the case named Smith (Wilding), and the two start falling for one another. He doesn't know that Eve is now living a double life -herself and that of Charlotte's dresser Doris in order to get information.

"Stage Fright" moves quickly, and the characters are wonderful. Dietrich is beautiful in her Dior outfits and as Charlotte, she is completely self-involved, calling "Doris" Elsie and every other name except Doris. She wants her widow's weeds cut lower in the front and plans on attending a garden party right after her husband's funeral. Wyman is very good, though she doesn't use an English accent. As Doris, though, she has a very serviceable Cockney. Michael Wilding is handsome and charming as Detective Smith, and Richard Todd as Jonathan is obsessed as well as frightened. Alistair Sim is hilarious as Eve's father, an excellent portrayal of an eccentric man, and Sybil Thorndike is very funny as Eve's airhead of a mother.

Dietrich sings several numbers in her inimitable style, and a very young Pat Hitchcock plays a young actress friend of Eve's. All in all, a good movie. Not Hitchcock's best maybe, but certainly better (as far as I'm concerned) than "I Confess."


Perfectionist Hitchcock did not like the opening flaw of this film story, where the initial flashback does not match the rest of the film. But this film is so much more than that once I viewed it. It might be the only film where Hitch does 2 Cameos - though one is so subtle that it is hard to catch while the other is very obvious.

The film does continue most of the themes of his prior work. Stairways are a central theme within the plot. Camera angles are used with very great care.

Mostly this is a great performance film. For whatever reason, the cast all have some of their best roles acting on film. Jane Wyman & Marlene Dietrich are both great. While Dietrich might have a better performance someplace, this is the best Wyman I have ever seen anywhere.

The male cast is fantastic, every one of them. In this film Alstair Sim (who would play Scrooge the next year) has his best performance in any film of his I have seen in addition to the classic as Wymans father. The support in this film is so strong that by the end, the viewer does not care about the beginning not making complete sense because Hitch & the actors have overcome that with a well made movie.

Hitchcocks next Warner film would be Dial M For Murder. While that one is more famous, this movie filmed in London with a strong British cast is worth while viewing.


'Stage Fright (1950)' certainly isn't one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films, but I like it  quite a lot, in fact. From 1949-1950, the Master of Suspense took a temporary break from Hollywood film-making and produced two UK productions, the first being 'Under Capricorn (1949),' a fascinating but relatively unengaging melodrama with superb camera-work. The second, a return to his standard narrative form after two noticeably experimental pictures, was an adaptation of the story "Man Running" by Selwyn Jepson. With a wonderful British supporting cast, centred around Hollywood stars Jane Wyman and Marlene Dietrich, the film has a distinctly British feel to it, and not just because of the actors and setting. Hitchcock's whimsical sense of humour, evident in a great many of his pictures, is allowed to permeate the traditional drama/romance storyline, and the film would certainly have felt comfortable alongside the Ealing comedies of the late 1940s and early 1950s, many of which employed darkly comedic overtones.

There's something about Jane Wyman that immediately caught my eye while watching this film. Behind her rosy cheeks, timid eyes and soft voice, there's a certain innocence and vulnerability about her demeanour that really drew my sympathy. Her character, Eve Gill, is basically a petty schoolgirl, driven by silly but unwavering aspirations to uncover the truth, and her delicate personality is punctuated by moments of stubbornness, and, indeed, some occasional bravery. I've never really taken to actress Marlene Dietrich, and I find her distinct European accent and stunted line-delivery to be rather distracting; however, she does passably well as Charlotte Inwood, demonstrating an arrogant disposition that forms a strong contrast with the mild personality of Wyman's character. As far as the male actors are concerned, strong performances are given by Richard Todd as the wrongly-accused boyfriend {for some reason or another, the Irish actor reminded me of Joaquin Phoenix}, Michael Wilding as the honest and romantic detective with whom Eve inevitably falls in love, and Alastair Sim is a lot of fun as our leading lady's loving and playful father.

In comparing Alfred Hitchcock's films with those of his contemporaries, it's interesting to note how the director made stunning, dynamic use of the camera. Both 'Rope (1948)' and 'Under Capricorn (1949)' had made pioneering use of long-takes, sweeping the camera across the room with astonishing style and grace. For the first time, Hitchcock {and cinematographer Wilkie Cooper} integrated these techniques into a more traditional film-making style, and multiple sequences play out in a single take; my favourite shot follows Cooper (Richard Todd) through Charlotte's front door, and smoothly rises with him as he ascends the staircase. Another interesting element to the film, which met with much criticism upon its release, is the ingenious use of a false flashback, as Cooper's recount of past events is revealed to be little more than an elaborate lie. As the anecdote was explicitly treated as Cooper's own version of events, I see little "dishonesty" in Hitchcock's clever manipulation of the audience, and the final twist certainly succeeded in taking me by surprise  though I probably should have noticed something amiss when the romance between Eve and Smith began to develop.


Alfred Hitchcock directs a superb cast in this murder drama set in England. Drama student Eve Gill(Jane Wyman)pretends to be an aid to London theater star Charlotte Inwood(Marlene Dietrich) to prove that she murdered her husband. The proper Alastair Sim plays Eve's father. Inspector Wilfred Smith(Michael Wilding)is in shrewed pursuit of Jonathan Cooper(Richard Todd)to charge him for murder. The high society singer may find herself the victim of a double cross exposing her ill deed. Featured is the sultry Dietrich's version of Cole Porter's "The Laziest Gal In Town". Suspenseful and close to being predictable...but not. Other players: Kay Walsh, Miles Malleson, Ballard Berkeley and the debut of the director's daughter Patricia Hitchcock.


I have to say I am slightly puzzled as to why 'Stage Fright' is not generally considered one of Alfred Hitchcocks' finest works, as on every viewing I remain glued to the screen right the way from beginning to end.

The film opens with a theatre curtain rising and we are immediately introduced to a postwar London still containing the ruins of World War Two. Eve (Jane Wyman), a Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts actress is driving Johnny (Richard Todd) who has run from away from the scene of the murder of the husband of Charlotte (Marlene Dietrich), a major star of the theatre. "Any sign of the police?" she asks him as they escape. "Eve, do you hate me now you know about me and Charlotte?" Johnny asks her. Eve regards Charlotte as "cold and calculating", and is convinced that she is using Johnnys' affections towards her to get him convicted of the murder. From here until very late in the picture, Eve does all she can to prevent Johnny from being convicted of a crime she is sure Charlotte has committed.

As the film progresses there are plenty of indications as to who might have done the crime, but it takes a dramatic twist towards the end of the picture for us to discover who out of Johnny and Charlotte is actually guilty. The conclusion very much goes against what we are led to believe for much of the films' running time due to an early flashback, something which Hitchcock apparently regretted. In my opinion this makes the movie hugely interesting and somewhat unique.

The other reasons for me liking this picture are plenty. The attractive Jane Wyman as Eve is outstanding in the lead role, whilst Marlene Dietrich steals much of the limelight, notably when she performs the song 'The Laziest Girl in Town' surrounded by smartly dressed men. Alistair Sim is very charismatic as Eves' father who goes out of his way to try to get Charlotte to confess, even using a doll with a bloodstained dress to unnerve her whilst she performs at a wet garden party ("What vermin some vermin are" Charlotte remarks). Charlotte suffers from 'Stage Fright' in front of an audience when she is presented with the doll, and is a fascinating character who uses her acting skills to get herself out of tricky situations in real life. Eve turns the tables on Charlotte by posing as her dresser and when she reveals her true identity a horrified Charlotte tells her, "I'll give you anything if you keep me out of this." The film harks back to Hitchcocks' origins as it contains many quintessentially British characters, notably Eves' parents and Charlottes' maid, and it is set in London which is where many of his early British films from the 1920's and 1930's took place. One notably British location is a pub where Eve meets the police detective Smith (Michael Wilding), who takes quite a fancy to her.

Overall, I think this is an excellent picture and very worthwhile viewing for all Hitchcock fans.


As I write this, Jane Wyman died two days ago (9/10/07) at 93 years of age. I did not watch this because I knew that, it was merely coincidence.

Stage Fright is basically a "whodunit" because you, the viewer, will think you know who the culprit is in this for a while and then realize that maybe you don't, after all. Jane Wyman knows of this murder, and helps the man who seems to be a suspect, and tries to "go undercover" to expose the woman who supposedly is the culprit, as played by Marlene Deitrich, in all her scary Teutonic glory. Wyman is also assisted by a police officer ("Ordinary" Smith) and her parents, one of whom is played by the wonderful Alistair Sim, not long before he played "Scrooge" in a Christmas Carol. This is entertaining and amusing but not, to me, top notch Hitchcock. The Master himself also puts in one of his famous cameos in this, as usual. This was Hitchcock's last film made in the UK until "Frenzy". If you're a Hitchcock fan,of course you'll want to see this if you haven't. I enjoyed it but it dragged on a bit at times. 7 out of 10.


In my opinion, Stage Fright is a great film. Like Under Capricorn and Suspicion, Stage Fright is very underrated. Stage Fright focuses on the point of view. We travel with Eve Gill (Jane Wyman) and her father Commodore Gill. We collect what she collects.

False Flashback scene is important, because Jonathan (Richard Todd) is trying to convince Eve Gill that he is innocent. Jonathan wants to survive, so he tells the false story to Eve. He knows that it is easy to tell a lie, because they were old friends.

It is also False Flashback that is responsible for some of the major events in the film like Alastair Sim (Commodore Gill) putting the blood on the doll to frighten Charlotte (Marlene Dietrich).

Jane Wyman, Alastair Sim, Michael Wilding, and Kay Walsh were great. The romantic scene in the car was beautifully acted and beautifully filmed.

The MacGuffin in Stage Fright is Doris Tinsdale.

In the Car Scene, Michael Wilding (Inspector Wilfred Smith) tells Eve Gill that he and police were looking for Doris Tinsdale. Only the audience, Eve Gill, and her father knows that Doris Tinsdale doesn't exist. Doris Tinsdale is the name Eve Gill used when she started working for Charlotte Innwood (Marlene Dietrich).

Its just like "George Kaplan" in North by Northwest. And George Kaplan is one of the MacGuffins in North by Northwest.

Marlene Dietrich was alright. Richard Todd's performance in the end makes this film more special. He reminded me of Ivor Novello in Hitchcock's first masterpiece The Lodger and Norman Bates in Psycho.

But one of the major plots twists in the film was when Smith tells Gill that Jonathan was acquitted for an earlier murder when he claimed that he killed in self-defense.

I liked the way the movie was done. I definitely give this film 9 out of 10.


I have to admit that the ending of this Hitchcock film surprised me.

I am usually pretty good at picking up clues but I missed 2 large ones in this film.

The first is the story told by the murderer, I believed it. The story was told in flashback, it may be a lie. I have seen most of the Hitchcock films and the innocent are virtually always just that, innocent. It just didn't occur to me that the story might be a lie.

The second clue is the fact that the heroine fell out of love with the murderer and into love with the detective. This should have clinched it for me but I missed the meaning completely. Heroines do not fall out of love with heroes, unless there is a very good reason.

This film is a bit subdued due to the fact that the murderer could not give himself away until the end.

I thought that it could have had a more intense climax when his guilt was revealed.

I give it 9 out of 10 due to fact that it surprised me.


This was apparently from Hitchcocks low period between Notorious 1946 and Strangers on a Train in 1951, that Rope has offcourse later become a classic, while Paradine Case and Under Capricorn haven't. While it's certainly not one of Hithcocks best, it have a few scenes that is just wonderful, and characters. The Laziest Gal in Town, Marlene Dietrich does what she does best, singing a torch song, but she's very good as the spoilt superstar. (She made another movie in Britain with James Stewart and Glynis Johns in 1951) Jane Wyman reminded me of Margaret Lockwood in The Lady Vanishes, as the lady in distress who for no reason actually want's to solve a crime. OK she was somehow involved by heart to Richard Todd. Richard Todd was the man on the run, seen him in a few Disney movies of the 50s so I guess he was the star for a while (He was in a movie with Bette Davis where she played Queen Elizabeth) Michael Wilding played the Police representative, meeting Jane coincidentaly in a bar, or not.... But 3 other names makes this delicious too! Alastair Sim, Dame Sibyl Thorndike and Joyce Grenfell.


How the tables turn in this movie. Hitch said this was his second mistake of his career when he falsely led the audience into thinking the flashback scene was real. But beware. It is hitch and he always has something in store for his audience. I thought that was the brilliance of the film but that can be argued.

Marlene Dietrich is so unbelievably sexy and the way she presents herself is very nostalgic of her Von Sternberg days with "Blue Angel" and "The Scarlet Empress". Was 15 years that long to lose her sexuality? I don't think she ever lost it. Richard Todd's character (Johnny) is the quintessential pre-Norman Bates. He has urges to kill which is his fault. Every character has some sort of fault which becomes very evident throughout the film and which Hitch is known for. Jane Wyman's character has a thirst for wanting to know the truth, but she doesn't when she finds it. I like how the romance changes which was something new at the time. Hitch always created something new which audiences viewed as typical Hollywood entertainment which is a shame since his movies are art in itself.

The opening seen says it all where London is the stage in the fictional story. Any Hitch fan should view this and go along with the ride and not question everything since it would ruin the experience.


MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS.

That's an underrated Hitchcock movie that contains, as most of his films, a lot of symbolism (I just want to mention this but I don't want to go into it because usually all these symbols are not something a viewer notices himself  they require literature!). But it's also, apart from some weaknesses, a great piece of suspense. A lot of hiding and dressing up and pretending to be someone else I like that.

The various characters and the actors who played them are also worth mentioning. Marlene Dietrich is really revealed as a bad actress as soon as she stops playing herself. Interestingly, this happens only in a flashback which later turns out to be a lie. The role of the arrogant diva suits her perfectly. Jane Wyman does a great job as Eve Gill, and also as Doris, the housemaid she pretends to be. The most hilarious character in the film, giving it a touch of comedy, is Eve's father, who is played by Alastair Sim: a phlegmatic, clever old man with dramatic sense who constantly seems to understand and accept everything that happens around him.

Not one of Hitchcock's most outstanding thrillers, but still: a Hitchcock.


The black and white cinematography is clear and crisp and architecturally sensual. Alfred Hitchcock makes his cameo appearances, and as usual it is interesting to anticipate where he will show up. This is a classic mystery thriller, but it has comedy and romance as well. The story is well-played out and fascinating to watch to the very end.


I don't think it is as good as North By Northwest and Rebecca, but Stage Fright was a great film, and this is coming from a Hitchcock fan. The photography is beautiful, and so is the music, making some scenes like the one in the taxi very touching. The script is well crafted, and while you think you know what's happening, the final solution is very unpredictable. My only complaint for the film was the last couple of minutes, the film just ended abruptly without a rounded finish or even a monologue. I liked the story, about a man who is accused of murder and a friend of his sets out to clear his name, it is well told, and doesn't have a sense of contrivance, and I did fear it would do. As for the acting, I had very little problem with it, Jane Wyman was perfectly alluring as Eve. Michael Wilding delights as "Ordinary Smith", and while he started off a tad wooden, Richard Todd was fine too. Two of the film's stars impressed me the most though. One was Marlene Dietrich, who was deliciously frosty as the stage actress and singer Mrs Winstead. I find Dietrich quite captivating, with her lovingly designed clothes, beautiful face and distinctive voice, I thought she was a great actress. The other was Alistair Sim, who I consider the best Scrooge ever, with George C. Scott close behind- he had some very funny moments, the most notable one being at the garden party and the doll stall. Even Hitchcock himself has a cameo 30 minutes into the film, as does his daughter Patricia. I didn't know until the end credits, that Kay Walsh, Nancy in Oliver Twist, played the maid. All in all, a very overlooked film, that is actually very clever. It isn't Hitchcock's best, but it is a very good film. 9/10 Bethany Cox