Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent, creepy thriller
Review: Creepy Hitchcock thriller with Robert Walker as a psychopath who attempts to persuade tennis star Farley Granger to "criss cross" murders; then Walker fulfils his side of the deal and expects Granger to do the same. Has both suspenseful and humorous moments (mostly due to Patricia Hitchcock as a Senator's daughter), but this is not among the best of Hitchcock; nowhere near Vertigo, North by Northwest, or Psycho. Some interesting asides: murder reflected in eyeglasses, well-edited tennis scenes (there are not many tennis movies out there), and creepy homosexual subtext, which author Patricia Highsmith also used in her novel "The Talented Mr. Ripley."
Rating: 
Summary: Hitchcock on the right track
Review: "Strangers on a Train" is that rarity, an Alfred Hitchcock film concerning which one talks about an actor's performance almost as much as the director's. The actor, of course, is Robert Walker, presenting his remarkable portrayal of Bruno Anthony, the rich, unstable man who offers the hero Guy Haines a deadly proposition: he'll kill Guy's wife Miriam (played by the interesting Laura Elliott) if Guy will kill Bruno's father. Because they are strangers on a train who do not know their intended victims, there will be no motives, therefore perfect alibis. Guy doesn't take Bruno seriously, which turns out to be a fatal mistake. Bruno is a complicated part. Although he is obssessed with his own superiority, he can be incredibly petty (popping a little boy's balloon just for the meanness of it), not to mention prissy ("I'm afraid I don't know what a `smoocher' is!"). The character seems to overshadow the entire movie, which is appropriate, because Bruno casts a shadow over the easy, affluent world in which he lives. When he crashes the senator's cocktail party, it's like Satan has arrived, striding through polite society. And, no, Walker was not nominated for an Oscar. Neither was Joseph Cotten for "Shadow of a Doubt". Neither was Anthony Perkins for "Psycho". The Academy evidently had difficulty with Hitchcock's anti-heroes. Hitchcock originally wanted William Holden for the role of Guy Haines, but I think Holden was so savvy and macho, it would have been difficult to accept him as a psycopath's pawn. Farley Granger is atheletic enough to be convincing as a tennis champ, but he has a boyishness which makes the vulnerable aspects of the character believable. The film is filled with the touches one associates with Hitchcock. Some are obvious, like Miriam's strangulation reflected in her eyeglasses. Others are more subtle: After the murder, Bruno approaches Guy outside Guy's apartment house. At first Guy cannot tell who is calling his name in the dark. Bruno is standing near a large gate with wrought-iron bars; and, as Guy comes near him, he steps behind the gate -- in other words, he's behind bars. Then, after he has told Guy about Miriam's death and Guy is absorbing the shock, a police car pulls up in front of Guy's apartment house and Guy himself ducks behind the gate. Now they're BOTH behind bars. Hitchcock was a genius, no doubt about it.I wonder how many viewers have noticed the odd discrepency near the end. Bruno has stepped off the train at Metcalf, holding the incriminating cigarette lighter he hopes to plant on the amusement park island, thus framing Guy. A pedestrian brushes by him and the lighter falls into a storm drain in the street. Bruno, frantic, tries to enlist the aid of passersby. However, he says (not once but twice) "I dropped my cigarette CASE in the drain!" Walker, of course, was in the process of drinking himself to death; but the mistake could easily have been corrected with a little dubbing. It's bothered me for years why it wasn't.Director of Photography Robert Burks began his long association with Hitchcock on this picture. He must have worked night and day to satisfy Hitchcock's demands, but his loveliest effect is the amusement park's neon lights against a glowing black-and-white sunset.The film's mood is enhanced by Dimitri Tiomkin's romantically mysterious score. It's particularly striking in the movie's"coda" when Guy is trying desperately to finish a tennis game (allegro) and Bruno is desperately trying to reach that damn lighter (adagio). Hitchcock and Tiomkin worked a couple of more times together but never more effectively than in thisdazzling masterpiece.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent movie - cheap snap case.
Review: 'Stranger's On a Train' is classic Hitchcock. Excitement, suspense, a little romance, great set pieces, this movie has it all. The only disappointing aspect about purchasing this movie is that is comes on one of those cheap snap cases! Why does Warner Bros. do that? They put all of their movies in those dumb cases. Are they trying to save a little money or what?
Rating:
Summary: Strangers brings out the best in all!
Review: I consider this movie to be the best of the Hitchcock masterpieces. It's almost as difficult as choosing my favorite Miles Davis song, but this movie is very well done. The acting is head and shoulders above other "suspenseful" flicks of that age, and to tell you the truth, I LONG for these type movies these days. I want to be SUPRISED and drawn in when I watch a movie. If I'm observing from the outside, you've lost me! This movie makes me VERY aware of the cinematic cues, from lighters to shoes to glasses in the grass, it ALL comes together to form a timeless piece of cinema excellence!
Rating:
Summary: Strangers On A Train
Review: Very good movie. If you like good story lines with suspense and action, then I highly recommend Strangers On A Train. It is one of Hitcock's top 4 or 5.
Rating:
Summary: pretty good, but not Hitchcocks best
Review: Very good movie and DVD. Not sure if I'd call it timeless, but well worth the price for movie buffs and Hitchcock fans. You'll see some of these characters and scenes ripped off by directors in later movies.
Rating:
Summary: Not one of Hitchcock's Best
Review: Strangers on a Train was a good movie, but it certainly wasn't one of Hitchcock's best. Except for Robert Walker's haunting performance, most of the acting was garbage, which greatly contributed to the film's downfall. The premise, however, was very interesting. Good for one viewing, but no more than that. If you want Hitchcock's best, go for Psycho (my favorite), North by Northwest, Rebecca, Rear Window, and Shadow of a Doubt.
Rating:
Summary: High-smith; low-to-middlin' Hitch
Review: OK, we all know Hitchcock was the filmmaker of the century- that's a given. But this movie dates very badly to my eye, and I'm not convinced it was one of his better pieces to begin with. Granted, I'm biased from having read the more subtle and sinister original novel by Patricia Highsmith, one of my favorite authors (it's out of print in the U.S., but worth reading if you can find a British import copy, as I did).You could have dressed a chunk of firewood in a little outfit and gotten more convincing acting than Farley Granger's. Or Ruth Roman's, for that matter. Even Robert Walker seems quaint, with his mannered Latent Homosexual Creep (ooo, scary!) It would spoil both movie and book to detail the ways in which Hitch and his writers watered down Highsmith to make the story more conventional and crowd-pleasing. I'll just say that the much-ballyhooed merry-go-round climax embodies every smart writer's fear of what Hollywood will do to their work. Don't get me wrong, this is fairly entertaining: gorgeous B&W cinematography, a premise that's a humdinger (I liked Pat Hitchcock's performance, too). But if you're talking about something genuinely gripping and unsettling, you're talking about Highsmith. I'm not one of those stuck-up types who think adaptations have to stick faithfully to the originals- I just think the changes have to be the right ones.
Rating:
Summary: Look Closer
Review: Much has been written about this Hitchcock film. Take another look. There is no great Bernard Herrman score for this film. Farley Granger might be a bit miscast as the tennis player. Take another look ..this is PURE Cinema! The Black and White Images here need no film score by even a master like Herrman. This is one of the great masters films that really has to be seen again....but not often as a "North by Northwest" type of film. Robert Walker plays his role to the hilt..and there is nothing profound here ..just a sample of pure cinema. CP
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting story but really bad acting
Review: If this movie had been directed by anyone else, it probably wouldn't even make it to DVD. The storyline is mildly entertaining but I found myself laughing in several places because the acting was so bad and some parts of the plot were completely unrealistic. A few interesting twists here and there, but overall I would recommend passing on this one unless you are a big Hitchcock fan.
|
