I won't say this much ado about nothing, because murder is certainly not nothing. But compared to the pompous musical background, one would think this was the most significant story in the planet's history. If it was an actor going to such extremes, we would accuse him or her of overacting.
That was the first hint to me that this was not going to be one of Alfred Hitchcock's great films. In fact, it may have been his worst film since the 1930s (until the cheap-thrill ecstasy of "Psycho" and "The Birds"). Of course, to a devout Catholic, the story may have been far more fascinating than it was to the rest of the viewing public. Here and there there is inane dialog that wasted my time. And some of the photography was downright lousy.
That's not to say this is a bad film. It's actually fairly good...but if you didn't know it was a Hitchcock film, you wouldn't think it was. After all, we know who the murderer is from the beginning. So there's little suspense. It's just a question of how the priest will handle a murder confession...particularly when it indirectly involves him in a love triangle that makes him a suspect.
Ironically, the best thing about the film is the acting by Montgomery Clift...and Hitchcock reportedly hated Clift's method acting style. The other performances are good, as well. Anne Baxter is good as the love interest. Karl Malden has a fair good role as a police inspector. Brian Aherne is excellent as the prosecutor, and it made me wonder why I am not more familiar with his acting. Roger Dann is fairly good as the husband of Bancroft. Dolly Haas is satisfactory as the wife of the murderer. I'm not so sure that O.E. Hasse's performance as the murderer is up to snuff. His character is such a coarse man, but I almost felt this was a case of overacting.
I have watched this film twice now, and I doubt I'll watch it again. And that's a good example of why I believe this film is not up to Hitchcock's usual standards. I have quite a few Hitchcock films on my DVD shelf, and every once in a while I'll pull one down and enjoy watching it again. This one wouldn't lead me back again. It's a good, but average film.
That was the first hint to me that this was not going to be one of Alfred Hitchcock's great films. In fact, it may have been his worst film since the 1930s (until the cheap-thrill ecstasy of "Psycho" and "The Birds"). Of course, to a devout Catholic, the story may have been far more fascinating than it was to the rest of the viewing public. Here and there there is inane dialog that wasted my time. And some of the photography was downright lousy.
That's not to say this is a bad film. It's actually fairly good...but if you didn't know it was a Hitchcock film, you wouldn't think it was. After all, we know who the murderer is from the beginning. So there's little suspense. It's just a question of how the priest will handle a murder confession...particularly when it indirectly involves him in a love triangle that makes him a suspect.
Ironically, the best thing about the film is the acting by Montgomery Clift...and Hitchcock reportedly hated Clift's method acting style. The other performances are good, as well. Anne Baxter is good as the love interest. Karl Malden has a fair good role as a police inspector. Brian Aherne is excellent as the prosecutor, and it made me wonder why I am not more familiar with his acting. Roger Dann is fairly good as the husband of Bancroft. Dolly Haas is satisfactory as the wife of the murderer. I'm not so sure that O.E. Hasse's performance as the murderer is up to snuff. His character is such a coarse man, but I almost felt this was a case of overacting.
I have watched this film twice now, and I doubt I'll watch it again. And that's a good example of why I believe this film is not up to Hitchcock's usual standards. I have quite a few Hitchcock films on my DVD shelf, and every once in a while I'll pull one down and enjoy watching it again. This one wouldn't lead me back again. It's a good, but average film.