Rating: 
Summary: AN OSCAR FOR FONTAINE.
Review: In a beautiful performance, Fontaine plays the daughter of a wealthy English family who is charmed by a ne're-do-well wastrel; she is captivating in her playing. Cary Grant was well-suited for his role as Johnny, but I felt the melodramatics toward the end were rather banal and obvious; surely there could have been a more satisfying ending - could there not? Hitchcock is seen in his token cameo halfway thru the film - mailing a letter in a village mailbox.........Hitchcock's suspense thriller is about a woman who gradually realises she may be married to a killer (and may be next on his list). An excellent production unravels at the end due to RKO's insistence that Grant retain his "attractive" image. This forced the writers to opt for the usual dull (and rather infuriating) moral ending. Nigel Bruce received kudos for his playing of Johnny's friend "Beaky" and there are more than a few similarities in Fontaine's character which seem borrowed from REBECCA. Intriguing and finely played, the movie's end is an unfortunate let-down to some while others feel that it's fitting. As a trivia footnote to those who are interested -
it's fairly common knowledge among movie buffs that Hitchcock actually planted an incandescent light inside that "fatal" glass of milk which Grant so dramatically carries upstairs.....It could be said that the AA Fontaine won for this film cemented the practically life-long feud between she and her sister Olivia de Havilland; Olivia supposedly was jealous of his little sister winning an Oscar before she did - to say nothing of getting married first!
Rating: 
Summary: Hitchcock keeps you guessing again!
Review: Like his other great films that relied on the last few minutes of the movie to resolve the great mystery throughout (like Psycho), this one keeps you guessing until the end. As a matter of fact, it's one of those movies that you have to watch again just to catch all the clues you missed throughout. From the first time we meet Grant's character, we see a taste of things to come from him. He's irresponsible with money, which leads him to make some bad decisions - yet Fontaine's character loves him anyway. Then things take a turn for the worst, and he finds himself deeply in debt and the world crashing down on him. His only solution: insurance money...money that can only be collected by his wife's death - but would he go that far? Or worse yet: has he murdered already? This movie keeps you guessing until the last minutes of it. While I agree that the ending comes rather too abruptly and you feel slightly robbed by the quick resolution of it all, it's still a great Hitchcock film (weren't they all though?) and deserves to easily head into the top 10 of all of his efforts.
Rating:
Summary: One of his Best!
Review: man a lot of people I guess haven't seen this film. well, this is one of the greatest by Hitchcock and I bought it before even seeing it because none of the movie stores had it. it's a great flim with a romantice chilling thrill! everyone who likes old films should see this one. And I mean ONLY people who are big fans of old classic films because some who AREN'T big fans of old films won't like this film...because it's got that ussual airy fairy feeling with the loud emotional music and stuff! It's a great film!
Rating: 
Summary: Could have been a masterpiece...
Review: One of the earliest films in Hitchcock's American canon could have been one of his best. However, the studio interfered and forced through an ending which is clumsy, inane, and which makes utter nonsense of everything that has gone before. This movie might almost achieve its intended effect on first viewing; on second viewing, however, it is virtually impossible to enjoy the suspense knowing the banal finale one awaits.All this is a shameful travesty, since the rest of the movie is a showcase for some of Hitchcock's best work. Skillfully complemented by Harry Stradling's camerawork and Franz Waxman's score, the director produces some of the most chilling and suspenseful sequences of his career. The film in itself (minus the ending) is a masterful exercise in playing with the conventions of the star persona: the story is told from the point of view Joan Fontaine, with the suspicion of the title falling firmly upon the roguish, but charming, Cary Grant. How could a director even think of toying with the sacred like this? Remember, this was in the day when the studio system ruled. In the hands of a master like Hitchcock, though, such a reversal of the scheme of things (beautifully encaptured by an early shot in the film in which the camera encircles the embracing lovers) can work. Hitchcock tried it many times after that, most notably with James Stewart in Vertigo. Evidently the studio mistrusted Hitchcock, which explains the atrocious conclusion. The result is that the film feels like an appalling waste of time. It almost certainly cannot be enjoyed more than once, at least not fully, and according to the director's intentions. Ultimately, we are left bewildered as a classic becomes mediocre before our eyes.
Rating:
Summary: The ending is fantastic!
Review: Rear Window is my favorite movie of all time. I think Suspicion is wonderful, and ranks just below it. Take the movie for what is is, instead mulling over how the studio changed the ending. The "new" ending works marvelously and is especially shocking if you've seen the rest of Hitchcock's catalogue--some of Hitchcock's movies tend to end predictably, but not so with Suspicion. The ending is a bit rushed, but it works. Grant and Fontaine rule it. Rent this movie or buy it instead of Mixed Nuts.
Rating:
Summary: Great film!
Review: Suspicion has all of the qualities of a great film, and then some. It's romantic, mysterious, and with much suspence throughout the whole film. Cary Grant is charming and debonior in the role, and Joan Fontaine is shy and beautiful. It's a very entertaining and intriguing film, entirely believable. It's amazing and suprising in how it ends. It's a film well worth seeing anytime.
Rating:
Summary: Could have been better but still good...
Review: Suspicion is a great film, as are most Alfred Hitchcock films. It features two talented classic stars, Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine, and is very suspenseful and chilling. Although this film could have been much better had the ending been different, it is still quite good as it is, especially because of Grant's amazing (but much ignored) performance as Johnny. Essentially, Suspicion is the story of a bookish, shy English girl (Joan Fontaine) who falls in love with a charming but irresponsible man named Johnny (Cary Grant). As the film progresses, the audience begins to suspect Johnny of more than simply gambling and being irresponsible, which raises the question - are the suspicions justified or is "Monkey Face" (what Johnny calls his wife) just being paranoid? The film progresses, building to a seemingly unforgettable conclusion - but then suddenly, and very unconvincingly, Johnny is vindicated! In my opinion, this ending, while still making Suspicion a great film and enjoyable to watch, really detracts from the overall effect. I feel that Hitchcock's original ending, in which Johnny gives his wife the poisoned milk, she drinks it, but writes a letter beforehand saying that she knew he was going to murder her, would have been far more effective. Sadly, however, because of Grant's matinee-idol appeal, the studio did not allow Hitchcock to cast him as a murderer (they feared it would hurt his popularity). Anyhow, even though it is frustrating that Grant was so constrained by the studios and by his own persona, Suspicion is still a good film as it is, and is totally worth seeing!
Rating:
Summary: A Good Fontaine Performance
Review: Suspicion is a movie that has an ending that frustrates some, and pleases others. Personally, I think the ending is good and appropriate, although it is a little abruptly presented. Joan Fontaine is quite good (I don't usually care for her performances) as a quiet, reserved English woman who marries the irresponsible Cary Grant, displeasing her father who assumed she would make a wiser choice. As time goes along, she begins to suspect that her husband may have killed someone and might be looking at her as his next victim. The inclusion of a character that writes murder mysteries adds to the mood and suspense. Grant is very effective as her husband, Johnny, and it's unusual to see him in a basically threatening, unsympathetic role. Hitchcock slowly drops clues along the way, and the glowing glass of milk is an excellent effect. Suspicion is a very good story, and although it's not the best example of Hitchcock's work, it's still a good movie by any standard.
Rating:
Summary: Weakest Hitchcock ever
Review: Taken as a flat 40's thriller, this ranks pretty well. Next to Hitchcock's other works, it's pretty mundane. There is good dialog, Fontaine's growing suspicion that her husband might be a murderer can be interesting at times, and Grant makes it watchable in really one of his best performances (if he'd been lousy in it, it would not have been watchable). I think Fontaine's Oscar was partially for Rebecca, the film she lost for the year before, because she is pretty unremarkable in this. But she had little to work with either. I wouldn't recommend avoiding this, but just go in without the expectation that Hitchcock was involved, and you won't be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: A Suspicion that this Could Have Been More Memorable
Review: There are no directors better than Alfred Hitchcock in setting a mood of menace or a string of clues that point to some truly climactic ending. In SUSPICION, Hitchcock presents a view of good guy Cary Crant as a leering, lying, cad who may be guilty of even worse criminal behavior. Grant is Johnnie, who opens as the Cary Grant his fans have always known: suave, handsome, dashing. Joan Fontaine is Lina, a rather bookish frump who nevertheless catches Johnnie's eye. Early on, Johnnie's interest in Lina is at least partly based on her family fortune. When the audience sees Grant going against type by playing the caddish Johnnie, they can see that behind the smiling eyes and suave grin lay a twist that no one would have believed. Director Hitchcock slowly builds up the character of Johnnie by innuendo. At each step of the way, Lina hears and sees the implied charges, but she always tries to find a rational answer that does not point toward what the audience sees as the inevitable truth. Nigel Bruce as Beaky, a childhood chum of Johnnie's, supplies the same innocent charm that he displayed earlier as Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes series. Here as Beaky, Bruce reinforces the twin nature of Johnnie: that is one must accept his negative side if one is to as readily accept his positive. With each revelation, first from Beaky, then from Johnnie's employer (Leo G. Carroll), the mounting evidence accrues to convince Lina that her husband is guilty of a series of crimes ranging from theft, to deception, to murder. The famous scene in which Johnnie brings Lina a glass of glowing milk indelibly etches in the audience's collective mind the conviction that Johnnie is indeed the creep that he appears to be. Unfortunately, Hitchcock could not allow the reputation of Cary Grant to be tarnished by ending the movie on the affirmation of a guilt that he had spent the better part of two hours so carefully constructing. The turn about of the closing scene leaves the viewer gasping in disbelief. Even if that viewer accepts the glib explanation of Johnnie of his true motivation, then this acceptance still leaves him as the same cad he was at the start of the film. Still, Joan Fontaine as Lina managed to snare an Oscar for best actress. SUSPICION is the kind of quality film that except for the last minute manages to engage the viewer in a race against time during which one woman must balance her feelings against mounting suspicions against a man whose charm is source both of her love and her deepest fears.
|
