Rope

Rating:
Summary: Another Murder for Hitchcock
Review: If, deception, and suspense intrigues you, then Alfred Hitchcock's film Rope is your movie. Its about two young men who murder there prep school mate. They try to show there intelligence and superiority by inviting David's closest friends and family over for a party. The guests are unaware that David's dead body is right under their nose.
This film is one of the most boring films I have ever watched. The plot takes place in a lavish penthouse where two school mates, Brandon (Dall) and Phillip (granger) who plan out this murder, strangling their classmate David with a rope. Brandon feels there superior to David and that murder is an art when done right. Through out the film they invite David's close family over, fooling them on David's where about, so they think. Rupert (Stewart) who inspired the two men to do this, tries piecing together the missing David. This film being classified as a thriller is a joke. Britney Spears film Crossroads was as much as a thriller as Rope. Sense the viewers already know who killed who; they have to sit through eighty minutes of hell, knowing they're going to get caught.
The acting in this film was mediocre. John Dall (Brandon) did a good job on portraying an arrogant young man on top of the world. He was so cocky with his sly remarks about David, to the others at the party, that I hoped he got caught. Farley Granger (Phillip) also did a good job portraying a weak minded person who gets pushed around by his friends. Another actor who did an above average job on his character was James Stewart (Rupert). He was the enlightening teacher who thinks his views have meaning and importance. As for the rest of the cast, I thought there performances were appalling. Constance Collier (Mrs. Atwater) was horrible. She looked like she was trying to hard, and I think a five year-old could have acted better then her. Joan Chandler (Janet) had her weaker points. Her character seemed like an air head, and she didn't fit the part right.
After seeing other films Alfred Hitchcock films, like Psycho and The Birds, this film is a toss up with The Birds as one of the worst films I have watched. I would rather been put through the Chinese torches then sit through it, let alone watch the entire thing. An aspect of the film that mad e it seem boring and pulled along was that there was only one setting for the entire film. This made it hard to pay attention and made the film seem quite dull. Another negative attribute was that the film did not feel like a thriller because there was no action since the entire film was in one confined area.
Throughout Hitchcock's film career, he has put together many masterpieces and classic film that people look back on still to this day. He is full of surprises in his films, bring never before seen work to his film era; well Rope should have never been seen. This film drags on for eighty minutes, pulling horrible acting and camera work along with it. I would chop my two thumbs off, rather then use energy to point them down. Unless film viewers are looking for something to fall asleep to, I strongly suggest not watching the film Rope!

Rating:
Summary: Rope Not So Hot
Review: Rope Not So Hot

Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 movie, "Rope," lacks anything to make it appealing. After watching this mind-numbing film, I would have to say its not a movie anyone would want to fritter $6 to go see at the theatre. This dull movie is set in an apartment complex. In this film, the main characters are Brandon, Phillip, David, and Rupert. Hitchcock's main idea in this motion picture was to have Brandon and Phillip attempt a planned out stunt murder on one of their close friends just for the thrill of it. There wasn't an exact reason why they committed the murder on David but they just wanted to prove to themselves how nicely they planned out the murder and how everything worked out so smoothly as planned, showing their intellectual superiority. After the murder, Brandon and Phillip decide to celebrate their success by having a party in their apartment. They invite guests to their party as though they think they haven't got in enough trouble as it is.
The setting in this film takes place in an apartment. Throughout the whole movie, the setting does not change at all. It is boring and the only place that the characters go is from one room to another in the apartment. There isn't much to look forward to, and the audience feels confined.
The plot in this film wasn't anything too special. The whole murder act could have been unmistakably performed and settled without all the other things that happen throughout the film. To the viewers, many may think of Brandon and Phillip's murder as being stupid. Who would honestly set up a party after their murder to celebrate what they have done? If that isn't bad enough, why would anyone keep the dead body in the apartment and not get rid of it? Not only did they keep it in the chest in the apartment, they even put David's body in the chest and use the chest as the serving table.
The after-murder party was positively a good way to assist Hitchcock's film hold it's high suspense. Brandon's decision to hide David's body into a chest increases the movie's suspense. Not only did he place the dead body in the chest, he uses the chest as a serving table for food during the party. Besides that, the film really gets going when the maid decides to clean up after the party is over. She clears off the food on the chest and is about to store some books back into the chest, where they belong. Brandon stops her from opening it and grabs the books away from her. As the party eventually ends everyone grabs their coats and hats. Rupert is handed David's hat by mistake and his initials are inside of it. Throughout the entire party everyone was wondering where David could be, and with Rupert finding the hat, it really kept the suspense building at this point of the movie.
As for the acting in this film, the characters did a fine job portraying their characters. John Dall, who played as Brandon, did a good job as the lead and chief of the murder. He tries to keep Phillip from ruining their perfect murder. Phillip is so frightened and nervous that he eventually spills the beans. Rupert little by little comes suspicious and was wonders what could ever happen to David. Joan Chandler as Janet played a good part in the film also. She was one of the few that were more worried about David's disappearance. Her sadness towards David's absence causes many of the guests at the party to be more concerned and cautious.
Overall I think this movie is one of Hitchcock's worst. The setting is boring and does not seem to move onto anywhere. The plot is okay when it comes to the perfect murder gone wrong, however the suspense throughout the movie gets better as the movie progresses. The characters played a good role as whom they were which helped out the film. This movie would be worth going to if you have nothing else to do and if you want to waste time. The setting and the whole plot line weren't too great. It was definitely not one of Hitchcock's classics.

Rating:
Summary: Rope Not So Hot
Review: Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 movie, "Rope," lacks anything to make it appealing. After watching this mind-numbing film, I would have to say its not a movie anyone would want to fritter $6 to go see at the theatre. This dull movie is set in an apartment complex. In this film, the main characters are Brandon, Phillip, David, and Rupert. Hitchcock's main idea in this motion picture was to have Brandon and Phillip attempt a planned out stunt murder on one of their close friends just for the thrill of it. There wasn't an exact reason why they committed the murder on David but they just wanted to prove to themselves how nicely they planned out the murder and how everything worked out so smoothly as planned, showing their intellectual superiority. After the murder, Brandon and Phillip decide to celebrate their success by having a party in their apartment. They invite guests to their party as though they think they haven't got in enough trouble as it is.
The setting in this film takes place in an apartment. Throughout the whole movie, the setting does not change at all. It is boring and the only place that the characters go is from one room to another in the apartment. There isn't much to look forward to, and the audience feels confined.
The plot in this film wasn't anything too special. The whole murder act could have been unmistakably performed and settled without all the other things that happen throughout the film. To the viewers, many may think of Brandon and Phillip's murder as being stupid. Who would honestly set up a party after their murder to celebrate what they have done? If that isn't bad enough, why would anyone keep the dead body in the apartment and not get rid of it? Not only did they keep it in the chest in the apartment, they even put David's body in the chest and use the chest as the serving table.
The after-murder party was positively a good way to assist Hitchcock's film hold it's high suspense. Brandon's decision to hide David's body into a chest increases the movie's suspense. Not only did he place the dead body in the chest, he uses the chest as a serving table for food during the party. Besides that, the film really gets going when the maid decides to clean up after the party is over. She clears off the food on the chest and is about to store some books back into the chest, where they belong. Brandon stops her from opening it and grabs the books away from her. As the party eventually ends everyone grabs their coats and hats. Rupert is handed David's hat by mistake and his initials are inside of it. Throughout the entire party everyone was wondering where David could be, and with Rupert finding the hat, it really kept the suspense building at this point of the movie.
As for the acting in this film, the characters did a fine job portraying their characters. John Dall, who played as Brandon, did a good job as the lead and chief of the murder. He tries to keep Phillip from ruining their perfect murder. Phillip is so frightened and nervous that he eventually spills the beans. Rupert little by little comes suspicious and was wonders what could ever happen to David. Joan Chandler as Janet played a good part in the film also. She was one of the few that were more worried about David's disappearance. Her sadness towards David's absence causes many of the guests at the party to be more concerned and cautious.
Overall I think this movie is one of Hitchcock's worst. The setting is boring and does not seem to move onto anywhere. The plot is okay when it comes to the perfect murder gone wrong, however the suspense throughout the movie gets better as the movie progresses. The characters played a good role as whom they were which helped out the film. This movie would be worth going to if you have nothing else to do and if you want to waste time. The setting and the whole plot line weren't too great. It was definitely not one of Hitchcock's classics.

Rating:
Summary: Tying the Knot
Review: Alfred Hitchcock's Rope was not your typical thriller. Brandon and Philip, played by John Dall and Farley Granger, committed the murder of a colleague, David in the opening scenes of the film. From that point on, they battled throughout the scenes with their emotions stemming from their tragic acts. Brandon's demeanor showed how proud he was of the perfect murder they had committed. It seemed as if the only reason for committing the crime was strictly out of the thrill of getting away with it. Brandon and Philip appeared to have very complex minds behind their reasoning for this murder which was simply out of their feeling of superiority to David. After completing this insane experiment Brandon and Philip threw a small party with David's family and close friends as guests. Not only that, but Brandon insisted on serving dinner from the chest where David's deceased body lay. This film shows some very "twisted" behavior but portrays it very well.
Rope would have been better developed as a play because of the single setting throughout the whole film. However, the characters developed their personalities well. Brandon, the confident one, went as far as telling a story of strangling a chicken, a story which hit too close to home. Upon hearing the story, Philip became even more nervous - a state which grew over the rest of the evening. At one point his agitation caused him to go as far as breaking a martini glass. The blood on his hand only attracted more attention to him because of his guilty conscience. Throughout the whole film, Philip was very sure they would be caught, especially when Rupert, one of the guests at the party, (played by James Stewart) seemed to be catching on to something strange taking place. Rupert kept quizzing Philip concerning the relationship of David and Janet, his fiancé, subtly trying to get information on David's whereabouts. As the night went on, Rupert began to thread together the behavior of his hosts into a horrific meaning. Philip kept pouring down the drinks to attempt to calm his nerves.
I thought the camera's point of view was strange for a film. It was as if it was someone in the audience of a play or just an observer at the party, which took place in the living room at Brandon and Philip's apartment. I also picked up on the ten minute reel changes. After every ten minute segment, Hitchcock focused in on a dark spot of that particular scene; sometimes the back of an actor's shirt or on a book. Showing a dark picture every ten minutes got somewhat tedious and annoying, it also came at some very awkward times. Despite all of these things there was a great deal of suspense throughout the film. This was a nice surprise especially considering the murder had already taken place.
All in all the actors portrayed their characters very well. From the murderers; Brandon and Philip, to the worried relatives of David, each character's emotions were well developed. Perhaps it was a mistake to have Rupert as a guest at the party; he seemed to be the only guest that was catching on. He put together the significance of the chicken story; he noticed the abnormal behavior of Philip and was very curious as to why dinner was served from the chest. Either way, with or without Rupert in attendance, Brandon and Philip were willing to take the risk.
Although I believe this thriller would have been better as a stage play, the suspense keeps the audience interested. It is not until the dinner party was over that the verdict came out. Throughout the entire film, questions arose from all angles including from Rupert, Mrs. Wilson, David's father and the audience: 'Where is David? Will Brandon and Philip complete the crime or will Rupert tie the knot?' To find the answers to these and other intriguing mysteries, enjoy Hitchcock's classic thriller of the "perfect crime".

Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock Ties a Great Thriller
Review: Alfred Hitchcock comes through with a great piece of work in his first ever color-film. "Rope" is a movie about two men, Brandon and Philip, who murder classmate David Kentley, whom they deem intellectually inferior. They then proceed to throw a party in their apartment with David hidden in a chest of which they serve dinner off. Brandon Shaw (John Dall) is very confident in his plan and seems to be poised to have everything go perfectly. His partner Philip Morgan (Farley Granger) does an astonishing job acting as the nervous suspect who thinks that every coincidental incident means that their plan is falling apart.
Hitchcock relates this film to human nature knowing that everyone loves to get away with something. This part of the suspense comes from our ability to be an accomplice to murder, without suffering the consequences. Everyone knows that murder is wrong, but Mr. Hitchcock directs the film in a way that will leave you wanting Brandon and Philip to get away with the murder. You will find yourself at the edge of your seat wondering if they can pull off this seemingly impossible task.
James Stewart does an excellent job playing the role of a retired schoolteacher (Rupert Cadell) who acts more like a detective than a teacher. Rupert is the character who originally taught Brandon and Philip the theory of moral and intellectual superiority.
However, he did not expect them to take it as anything more than a joke or a conversation. During the party, everybody begins to concern themselves with the well-being of David (the corpse). As the film goes on, the suspense builds up.
Alfred Hitchcock also uses the "one shot" idea so it gives the impression of real-time. This was done very well and was a strong point in the movie. You will not even notice the different cuts unless you pay very close attention in detail. The music was diegetic, as Brandon playing the piano was the only part of the movie that involved music at all. As Rupert begins to question him, Brandon plays faster as his paranoia grows. This film is loaded with excitement and you will find yourself anxiously anticipating what will happen next throughout the entire movie.
Some might not like this film because it is done all in one scene, but I think that this adds to the movie as you can see everything in the room at all times. This aspect of the movie is very intriguing, and I am surprised that this is not done more often. Everything in the movie was happening in the apartment. There is never a time when you will want to know what is happening elsewhere. This allows you to know that nothing is happening behind your back. I would recommend this movie to anyone who has not watched it before. Everyone should experience watching a film composed like this one.

Rating:
Summary: More Like Hang Me By a Rope
Review: As I sat and watched two men murder one of their friends for fun at the opening scene of the movie I begin to wonder why I am watching this. I remember that it is made by Alfred Hitchcock and know that it should be good because of this. Yet the movie "Rope," disappointed me for many reasons.
Growing up in a generation of excellent technology I don't have much tolerance for anything below par. Considering that this movie was made in 1948 it is an entirely different way of making films. The film used to produce this movie was shot in ten minute segments. In order for it to appear like it was shot as one, they had to go to a black scene to disguise the splice. This annoyed me because Hitchcock's way of doing this was to zoom in to a mans jacket or a dark table. It was an awkward shot and was very noticeable. Hitchcock also decided to film the entire movie in one apartment. The setting was very bland and I can't stand to watch one small scene for an entire movie.
The plot of the movie also was lacking in the innovative sense. Hitchcock began the movie with a murder and there was pretty much nothing left to make me want to watch it. They killed a friend just to see if they could get away from it. The moral aspect was sickening. The thought that any one is so much better than someone one else, which gives them the right to kill them, is disgusting. They had a party and danced around the idea the entire night. You knew they were going to get caught and there was no other point to the movie. They just dragged on a 5 minute story for 80 minutes.
The characters were uneventful and boring to watch. Brandon, one of the killers, was the host of the party and came up with the idea. He walked around giving people hints, like he yearned to get caught. His accomplice, Philip, was a nervous wreck the whole night. He was so anxious that it got really old to watch him or even listen to him freak out. The aunt of the killed man -one of the party guests-sat there laughing at everything. Hitchcock had many characters that just sat there and did nothing. They didn't add to the story line. They just made it more unbearable to watch.
Hitchcock tried to add suspense and drama by adding little details that were so blatantly obvious that you knew nothing would actually happen. While Brandon's maid was cleaning up after dinner, she began to lift the lid of the trunk that the victim's dead body was in yet, was quickly stopped by Brandon. This was added for the shock factor but unfortunately didn't work what so ever. Everyone knew that no one would see it and it wouldn't be opened in the long run.
While some people might find it entertaining to watch a dinner party with a lack of plot and horrifying morals for 80 minutes, it definitely doesn't match my view of a thriller. Generally I would say that this is one of the most unpleasant movies I've had to sit through. I understand that Hitchcock's known for classic movies but obviously missed on this one.

Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock Fails to Prevail
Review: A skyscraper view from an apartment window looking over beautiful New York City is an upright start to a not so worthy movie. Under Alfred Hitchcock's directing, Rope is an example of a dull and rather uninteresting-ho-hum style of filmmaking. The film begins with a great setting and would catch any viewers' attention. However these thoughts change rapidly when the movie suddenly hits a wall. In moving to the interior of a single apartment, the setting soon becomes extremely dull and boring. The entire film moves from one room to another, which becomes notably repetitive. This let-down introduction to the film would only get worse as this terrible movie progresses.
Rope does have a plot that isn't too bad. The movie revolves around a murder of a man by the name of David Kentley, played by Dick Hogan. Brandon, played by Josh Dall and Phillip, played by Farley Granger are the killers to this bizarre style of murder. Believe it or not, the two murderers throw a party and invite the descendents of the victim to help celebrate their accomplishment. The suspense builds up when guests at the party begin to talk about murder and how it sometimes is a privilege to commit such a crime. The invited party-goers begin to ask questions as to why dinner is being served on the book chest, where the dead body lay inside, instead of the dinner table. Rupert Cadell, played by James Stewart seems to be on to something and begins to give a scare to the two murderers. The suspense only gets more superior when people walk suspiciously near the chest. The suspense and plot aspects of the movie were well done. Hitchcock's use of camera work would also be another crucial asset in an attempt to make Rope a "classic" thriller.
Acting also played a faultfinding role in this film. The acting was flat out horrendous and extremely bland. The actors' try too hard to put on a good show in a poorly set up film. My ears were in distress when I heard the voices of some of the guests. Mrs. Atwater's voice was unbelievably horrid. I could hardly listen to what she was going to say next. Dall, Granger, and Stewart did an okay job, but improvement is definitely needed. Expressing their feelings and emotions in a manner that is not so tense and loosening up a bit would make the film more realistic and fun to watch.
If you enjoy listening to music or soundtracks in a film I recommend not watching this one. There is only one scene where music was being played and it was completely off beat with what was occurring. Not having a soundtrack added to the profound dullness of Alfred Hitchcock's disgracing film.
The camera work engulfed a sense of uniqueness and captured my attention. It was as though there were an imaginary person following the actors and catching the subtle actions that otherwise would not be seen. Hitchcock's unique style of switching scenes was greatly productive. He used ten-minute film reels as the filmmaking process. At the end of each reel the camera would focus on a dark object such as the back of a coat on one of the actors. The new reel would begin and the whole process would be repeated. The camera appeared to be on a rotary crane as it followed the actors throughout the apartment. This is what gave the role of the imaginary person. The camera work was very similar to Alfred Hitchcock's films Psycho and The Birds, which also had extraordinary camera functions and fantastic angles.
In conclusion, I believe that viewing this film would simply be a waste of time and should not be seen unless you are an absolute diehard Hitchcock fan. Rope would be at the bottom of the list when comparing it to Psycho and The Birds. Although some criteria were similar in these films, Rope seemed to be cut a little short in Hitchcock's efforts to prevail in filmmaking. Some segments of the movie kept me on my toes and at the edge of my chair as suspense began to amass, but other parts nearly put me to sleep. Rope's camera work was exceptional, however, Hitchcock's decision to not use a soundtrack is unquestionably taking away from a movie that had potential. It appears this time that the rope was tied slightly too tight around Hitchcock's neck when making decisions on the filmmaking process.

Rating:
Summary: "Rope" Review
Review: Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" in my mind was a first-class picture. For the time the movie was made it was concurrent. The movie flows well and has good transitions. It appears that it was shot in a single take. The opening part of the movie shows a scene of two men, Brandon and Philip, strangling the life out of their friend David. The reason that Brandon and Philip felt that the murder was alright was because of the philosophy from one of their past teachers, Rupert. Rupert stated that people who are of an intellectually inferior race should be murdered. Although believing in this statement Rupert himself would never act on it. After the murder, the killers hide the body of the dead man in a wooden trunk, in their house. Not satisfied with just the murder Brandon and Philip invited the parents, fiancée, and friends of the man they murdered over for a dinner party.
"Rope" is able to capture the suspense of the audience. While watching the movie you are unable to really predict what was going to happen next. Just when you think Brandon and Philip could not prove themselves to be anymore ludicrous, they prove you wrong. It seems as though they loved to put themselves into potentially bad situations. For example, they decide to serve dinner on the wooden coffin in which the dead body of there friend David lay. The film keeps you watching because you couldn't imagine what was going to happen next.
I felt that the actors in the movie portrayed their characters well. John Dall for example playing, Brandon, who seemed to run the whole show and his only goal, was to achieve superior status. Throughout the movie he controlled the actions of his friend Philip. He truly felt in his mind that if he thought someone one was intellectually inferior to them he could kill them. After committing the murder Brandon felt that he was a better person because of it. John Dall seemed that he new exactly who he was supposed to portray and did it splendidly so. Farley Granger playing, Philip, was a character that seemed to not know much of who he was as a person. He was a person that was easy to boss around and persuade to do things that you wanted him to. When all of the action is going on he begins to feel remorse and doesn't know how to handle himself. Farley Granger plays his timid, easily persuadable character marvelously.
I didn't like how in the movie the whole concept of "superior" and "inferior" was not explained. That actors talked about that if they felt someone was inferior to them it was alright to kill them. Who is one to decide that someone is inferior? What were the basis' for them deciding that someone was inferior? I felt that they needed more concrete reasons to support there actions. The point seems to be that it is such an opinion that it can not be explained or defended.
The ending of the film was not impressing by any standards. It was a typical ending to a suspense thriller. It didn't really fit the twists of the rest of the film. For example, little to no films kills off one of the main characters in the first scene of the movie. I was expecting more of a controversial ending, for example, Brandon and Philip receiving full appraisal from their philosopher Rupert
The overall impression of the film was outstanding. I really enjoyed the story that the film told. It kept me on the edge of my seat and I was excited to see what was going to happen next. I would recommend to anyone to watch the film. It will have an impact on you after you watch it. It will really make you think if there are people in society that portray the main characters.

Rating:
Summary: The Question Of Murder
Review: Review of "Rope"

In this spine-tingling thriller by Alfred Hitchcock we start off with a murder by two men, Phillip and Brandon who are played by Farley Granger and John Dall. They are taking part in this action just for the experience of killing. Now that the crime of the century has just happened and instead of disposing of the body the two killers throw a party to celebrate their first kill. They are insane with the idea that they are much wiser and smarter than any normal everyday murderers, so they decide to invite the victim's family, friends and fiancé. Then they decide to go further and invite their philosophical mentor, Mr. Cadell to the party.
These little tricks prove to be too much to deal with for Phillip, who has had a hard time with his newly acquired profession and wants the whole thing to be over. His dueling accomplice doesn't feel the same way and does more and more to dangle their work in front of everyone. The only one who starts to tune in on Brandon's forwardness is Mr.Cadell the old schoolmaster, played by Jimmy Stewart. He begins to suspect something is wrong and try's to get to the bottom of things. This is where I will leave you, so I won't spoil the ending.

I myself would recommend this movie because of its story line which keeps you on your toes and because of the good acting by Jimmy Stewart, John Dall, and Farley Granger. The tech crew also does some very tricky camera work. This movie does have some prominent names for most of the roles which is one of Hitchcock gifts at casting.
In this movie, Hitchcock does his takes in ten minute intervals, which not only tests the actor's ability to make the shots in real time but also involves moving the cameras and set pieces to follow along with the party. He does a marvelous job incorporating his shots to two rooms, with the main focus on the little conversation between each actor.
Hitchcock also brings us to a suspenseful climax at the end. He spends the entire movie bring us to the edge and almost feeling a little protective of the killers. The actors do this all too well. Both of the men who play Brandon and Phillip have you believe that their story is their reason death can and should be committed by superior beings.
The one person who starts to figure out these horrors is Mr. Cadell, he plays their game. He is surprised at the end when he finds that his own words have just come back and slapped him in the face. Stewart is at his best in this film. He not only shows a condescending man but also a crusader for the truth.
This movie should be scene by all; it fits the definition of a moral thriller to a tee. Even though they act out moral bending events in this film it is still a nail biting experience.

Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock Strangles Himself With His Own Rope
Review: Hitchcock Strangles Himself With His Own Rope

When I first saw the names Alfred Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart appear across the screen, I couldn't help but wonder what great classic I was about to enjoy. "Rope," the film I was about to see, was supposed to be a thriller for the time it was made. After seeing it, I find calling it a thriller is absurd.

In the opening scene of "Rope," Brandon and Philip, two former classmates, kill fellow classmate, David, by strangling him with a rope. They have no obvious motive for killing him, other than they feel they are superior to him and are curious to see how it feels to commit murder. Unlike other thrillers, the murder happens in broad daylight and lacks suspense. This film is nothing like what I consider a thriller, such as "Scream" or "I Know What You Did Last Summer." In these movies the soon to be victim runs from their killer for minutes only to end up being surprised and then stabbed, shot or choked to death. There was not a huge fight or chase nor were there loud screams or bloody images common to memorable thrillers.

After killing David, the two murderers decide to put him in a chest while they have a party to celebrate their act. The two invite everyone close to David, including his parents and fiancé, as well as their old teacher, Rupert. Brandon decides to serve dinner from atop the chest and have the party all around David's dead body. The absence of drama becomes more evident as the party continues. The attempt of the side plots between David's fiancé and David's friend, Kenneth, and also Mrs. Wilson's crush on Rupert were slightly amusing, but ended up trivial. While there were a few times where I wondered if someone would open the chest and expose David's dead body, the majority of the film dragged on until the secret was discovered.

Throughout the film I found many dark, clever hints of the murder. The candles on top of the chest seemed to be just dinner candles sitting next to a nice feast; however, they symbolized David's death like a funeral. Also, the story of Philip killing the chicken was clever because it resembled and symbolized David's death. Hitchcock tried to create suspense as Philip became very agitated from the story telling, but unfortunately failed. More dark hints from the murder happened as Brandon gave David's father the rope used to kill David to tie up his books. Hitchcock's brilliance came out in these scenes, unfortunately however even that could not save the film.

One aspect I did not enjoy about this film was the whole movie was shot in one scene. This was annoying because the audience does not get the visual breaks needed to stay involved and entertained in the film. Hitchcock was inventive and daring with this different approach to filmmaking, however this approach ends up reminding one of a stage play.

Rope is not a thriller. It did not possess the characteristics and does not measure up to today's standards of thrillers. If I would not have had to watch this film in my class, I would have not watched it at all.