Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Fitbit

Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars
66
4.0 out of 5 stars
Format: DVD|Change
Price:£16.97+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 4 November 2009
One of Hitchcock's great films, sadly let down in this poorly presented UK DVD edition from Universal. The DVD contains both a black and white and a colourised version, and absolutely nothing in the way of extras. The colourised version is hazy and lacks detail, the black and white version is only marginally sharper. A much better edition is the Region 1 DVD released in 2004 by Warner Brothers. It has superior picture quality and comes with a making of documentary "Before the Fact: Suspicious Hitchock", a theatrical trailer and subtitles in English, French and Spanish. Film 8/10, R2 UK DVD 1/10, R1 US DVD 9/10.
0Comment| 37 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 March 2017
unfortunately this dvd was very poor and kept sticking throughout the film.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 16 September 2007
Sadly the 2007 release is exactly the same as the 2003 DVD -- a (relatively) poor black & white transfer, a pointless colourised version, and no extras.

Much better is the 2004 region 1 US release from Warners, which features an excellent transfer and a 22 minute documentary.

It's a shame Universal UK sees fit to keep on re-releasing the same old transfers (e.g. the current transfer for "Psycho" is the same poor quality one first used for the 1999 DVD release).
11 Comment| 52 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERon 3 April 2013
For me, this 1941 work by master director Alfred Hitchcock does not quite make it into his 'premier league' of films, although the stature of the film does improve with repeat viewings and, in particular, the quality of the casting really does shine through. Also, the film is something of an oddity in the director's oeuvre, its opening hour or so belonging firmly to the 'semi-comedic' category of Hitch's films (which would include the, for me, superior The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes), whilst it is only during the film's (superb) last half-hour that it is transformed into a more trademark suspense thriller. Of Hitch's other works, the film that Suspicion reminds me of most strongly is (for me, the superior) Notorious where Cary Grant also plays an increasingly (seemingly) ambivalent character and the female lead is (apparently) threatened with murder (by poisoning).

Casting-wise, Suspicion is just about perfect. This was Hitch's first encounter with the great actor Grant who plays incorrigible womaniser, habitual liar, gambler, con-man and (apparent) gold-digger Johnnie Aysgarth and whilst (for me) Suspicion is not in the same league as the later Notorious and North By North West, Grant's performance per se is up there with pretty much anything he ever did. Joan Fontaine was reunited with Hitch (after Rebecca) for the film and her performance as Lina, after some initial romantic histrionics (during which she becomes obsessed with Johnnie) becomes increasingly complex and effective. The initial comedic sections of Suspicion are (whilst obviously not in Hitch's more serious suspense vein of film-making) actually very funny. Nigel Bruce is hilarious as Johnnie's old school mucker 'Beaky' Thwaite ('Sorry old bean') as he openly exposes Johnnie's character flaws of lying and gambling to new wife Lina, whilst each of Cedric Hardwicke and Dame May Whitty as Lina's upstanding parents are suitably officious, looking askance as their daughter admits, 'I went for a walk.....with a man'.

It is, however, during the final 30 minutes that Hitch notches up the suspense meter, as Lina suspects that in order for Johnnie to make good his gambling and other debts, he is plotting rather more drastic action (yes, you've guessed it, murder). Now, the director includes a series of trademark scenes, including a game of scrabble at which the word 'murder' is revealed, a series of revealing missives are received by Lina (suspense levels being deliberately raised as she reaches for her reading glasses), a dinner party at which the guests discuss who might be capable of murder, the notorious scene as Johnnie carries a brightly illuminated glass (containing who knows what) up a chiaroscuro staircase and the climactic, perilous, cliff-edge car drive sequence. For these moments alone, Suspicion demands to be taken seriously as a Hitchcock thriller.

For me, therefore, not up with the director's absolute best, but a film that improves with repeat viewings and containing enough great moments to merit its place in the master's oeuvre.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 April 2015
*Contains Spoilers*

Contrary to popular opinion: tedious, implausible... and yet more tedious.
Chemistry between Fontaine and Grant: nil.

Really - even before they tie the knot and the story gets underway - Grant is manipulative, creepy and overfamiliar... but I can't do any better than re-post this neat extract from a review by 'Maclear' on Amazon.com:

''One of the many problems with the script's credibility is Johnnie's attraction to Fontaine's character. Money is not the motive, as she asserts other eligible women he could have married have much more money than she does. One might answer that he marries her BECAUSE of her docility, that it is because he knows that she will allow him to take advantage of her - but that answer is belied by the tacked on ending. She marries him not knowing he has no income. Really? Johnnie ignores her for months on end and then appears claiming he loves her madly and she, poor pathetic thing believes it. Really? Had Fontaine's part been played by a callow 18 year old her actions (or lack of same) might be excusable, but Ms. Fontaine was well over thirty in 1941. Was the script written by a mysogynist? It certainly seems to have been written by someone not at all acquainted with human nature or, for that matter, humans. It is too formulaic - every bit of verisimilitude is sacrificed for the plot - and even that is mangled in the last few minutes.

Watch Grant's face as his closest friend almost dies - pure malevolence. Watch Grant's face as he hears he gets nothing in his father in law's will - cold-blooded anger. Listen to Grant's tone of voice when he chides his simpering wife for interfering in his business - self-righteous indignation. Any man who insists on calling the woman he supposedly loves "Monkey Face" is not loving at all, but cruelly mocking; and any woman who puts up with not being called ANYTHING endearing (let alone her name) and stands for it is to be pitied and wondered at. It is quite one thing for a character to have many sides to his personality; it is quite another for a character to become someone else entirely (smacks of schizophrenia). The happy ending has not been earned. If you enjoy watching the doings of a masochist married to a merry sadist who then turns out to be someone else entirely you will rave about this film. Imagine Uncle Charlie in "Shadow of a Doubt" showing himself to be a kind, benevolent soul and his niece being a cold-hearted murderer at movie's end and you get the idea. You want great Hitchcock, look elsewhere.''
22 Comments| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE VOICEon 31 December 2002
Cary Grant stars as Johnny, a well-bred, but penniless English playboy, who meets, woos, quickly weds ugly-duckling hieress Lina (played by Joan Fontaine). Soon after the honeymoon, Lina discovers that Johnny is a financial scoundrel. His old schoolchum, the wealthy and bumbling Binky, goes into business with Johnny, but Lina suspects Johnny may be planning Binky's (and her own) murder! Time and again, Johnny appears menacing and manipulative, only to be exonerated in the happy ending.
Director Alfred Hitchcok spent 90 suspenseful minutes showing Johnny as an evil, plotting killer, but was forced to alter the obvious ending (and change it to one that makes no sense at all). If the film were made today, Johnny would have stayed the insane maniac, and it would have been a better film. Making Johnny a hero at the end is confusing and pointless, unless you like happy endings at any cost.
In any event, Cary Grant is lovely as the suave charmer who drives all the ladies wild. Joan Fontaine is perfect as the doudy spinster he chooses for his scam/love-interest(?). There are many thrilling moments where it appears Johnny is methodically plotting his bride's murder. Fontaine's vulnerability and neediness mirror the audience's desire to believe in his honesty. It's a wonderful film you can enjoy over and over again, thanks to the two talented stars and the delightfully intense script.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 March 2013
This is the sort of film the BBC used to show on Sunday afternoons. It has a plot and genuine suspense. On the negative side, for modern viewers, the acting is pure ham and the outdoor sets and matte paintings would embarass a village pantomime. This has always been a weakness of Hitchcock films e.g. the Birds, Marnie, Torn Curtain and Psycho. But in spite of that, it's an entertaining story with some nice twists and turns. For me the scene stealer is Nigel Bruce playing the huffing and puffing buffoon he does to perfection - mainly because it's the same part he always plays. Cary Grant is his usual charming self but with a dark side to his character. There is a B+W version and a colour version (how do they do that?). Lovers of B+W will be outraged that the movie is colorized but it probably makes the movie more acceptable to the younger viewer. For my money, though it is done well, the addition of colour makes some of the exteriors look even less convincing. It's always amusing that in films from this era everyone has a maid and a cook. Ah, those were the days.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 29 March 2005
Hitch was forced to change the ending of this interesting psychological thriller to appease RKO executives, nervous about a film implying CARY GRANT is a killer. Yet the finished version remains a fascinating case study of how a vulnerable young woman's suspicion grows from doubts based on circumstantial evidence (JOAN FONTAINE in an Oscar-winning performance).
GRANT's portrayal of the reckless, slyly immoral Johnnie Aysgarth is even more notable, a sort of 'dress rehearsal' for the far darker role in the later Hitchcock masterpiece NOTORIOUS (1946).
There's also the classic Hitchcock 'touch' in the wonderful denouement - a superb suspense sequence involving a suspicious glass of milk being carried up a dimly lit staircase: Hitch put a lightbulb inside the glass to enhance the ghostly special effect.
Brilliant, underrated but slightly dated Hitchcock film - playful experimentation and also fascinating to see how 'Hollywood England' looked in 1940 too!!!
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 19 November 2000
Joan Fontaine was Oscar-nominated as best actress in the previous year for her much better performance opposite Laurence Olivier in "Rebecca", in a role not dissimilar to that in this typical Hitchcock thriller. That she won the Oscar for this portrayal of Cary Grant's wife who anguishes over the possibility that her new husband may be plotting to kill her says as much for the Academy's penchant at the time for sympathy votes as it does for the talented performances which prevented her winning in 1940. In that year, she lost out to Ginger Rogers' magnificent "Kitty Foyle" and was joined in the also-ran stakes by other memorable turns by Katherine Hepburn for "The Philadelphia Story" and Bette Davis in "The Letter". In 1941, she triumphed ahead of Davis's generally-accepted superior performance in "The Little Foxes", Davis herself having already won the prime accolade twice (for "Dangerous" in 1935 and for "Jezebel" three years later). Thus, she becomes a member of that growing band of performers who have received compensation from the Academy for lesser feats in recognition of more worthy and more-critically acclaimed earlier performances. (In recent years, the example of Paul Newman springs to mind, overlooked for his memorable roles in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", "The Hustler", "Hud", "Cool Hand Luke", "Absence of Malice" and "The Verdict", but finally rewarded in 1986 for a lower-key but still very effectual turn in "The Color of Money".)
What is perhaps particularly annoying about all this is that, good as her performance is in "Suspicion", Fontaine is not the pivotal focus of the film. That honour must go to Grant for a performance which achieves Hitchcock's objective of prolonging in the viewer the feeling of doubt about his true intentions towards Fontaine, right up to the end of the picture, and thereby enabling the viewer to fully appreciate the conflict of emotions felt by her. Grant was always going to be ideal for the role with his ability to deliver any line of dialogue, whatever the content, whether sincere or fraudulent, endearing or menacing, with that same consistent inimitable style - you can never guess what motives, if any, lie behind his facade, and that uncertainty is the very essence of Hitchcock's suspense and the whole picture.
RKO's front-office boys were uneasy with Hitchcock's original ending and he was forced to re-shoot it before release. However, if the revised denouement does appear to be a cop-out (and I suggest that it does so only to those who are aware on viewing the film that the punch-line had been changed), it matters little as the joy of the picture has in any event been fulfilled by that time.
0Comment| 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 13 November 2016
A 1941 psychological thriller from Alfred Hitchcock leaves the audience guessing until the very end. Joan Contains won the Best Actress Oscar for her performance as the spinsterish Lina, who after meeting and falling for playboy Johnnie, beautifully played by Cary Grant first on a train home and at a fox hunt overhears her parents discussing her lack of eligibility. After Johnnie gatecrashes a ball he soon whisks Lina off, with the couple eloping after a whirlwind romance much to the disapproval Lina's father. Returning to their fabulous new home after an expensive European tour honeymoon, Lina begins to find out the real character of the man she has married in haste. Johnnie turns out to be a gambler, a liar, and ultimately after reluctantly taking a job from a relative to his great reluctance an embezzler who sponges off everyone, has a mountain of debt but survives on his charm and playboy reputation. Lina begins to suspect she has been married only for her ultimate inheritance of her father's money, with Johnnie severely disappointed when he dies that Lina is left an annual stipend which doesn't approach the level of debt he is in.

Johnnie's lies get more elaborate as he keeps things from Lina, who receives a friend of Johnnie at home, Beaky played by Nigel Bruce at his best and most bumbling. Beaky let's slip a few facts about Johnnie and dismisses his behaviour as simply rakish - in his books Johnnie is simply a bit of a lad. What follows however are a superb ramping up of Lina's suspicions as Johnnie comes up with a get rich quick property scheme which Beaky is to put the money up for without questioning. The tension is further raised a notch as Lina receives a phone call from an insurance firm saying a letter is in that evening's post, with Lina finding out Johnnie has been enquiring about the terms of a policy on her life.

Fontaine plays her role superbly as her reading of the situation becomes increasingly paranoid. Grant portrays Johnnie as a devil may care chancer, and Hitchcock leaves the audience guessing as to whether he is ultimately just a good natured playboy or something very much darker. Hitchcock plays with the audience throughout, with only a climatic final scene revealing the truth. There are many elements of film noir present, with Grant's role as anti-hero of the film a real change to characters either being purely good or purely bad, apparent in many of Hitchcock's 1930's film's. In particular there is a wonderful scene of Grant ascending the stairs at home carrying a glass of milk with those stairs cast in ominous shadows and light and the milk looking like it has a light bulb in it to draw the attention. Classic Hitchcock that keeps you guessing.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)