Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle George Michael - MTV Replugged Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's



VINE VOICEon 28 April 2013
Rope is certainly not viewed by some critics as one of the high points of Hitchcock's glittering career. It usually languishes along with the likes of Lifeboat, Spellbound and other 'not quite there' Hitchcock films. However to look over this gem would be to miss out on one of Hitchcock's finest suspenseful thrillers.

Rope tells the story of two gay men (you certainly weren't allowed to say they were gay in the film in those days... or even outside of it) who's delusional belief in a theory of superior beings leads them to murder their friend David, who they believe inferior to their intellect. On the face of it a bit daft, but then we learn more about their devotion to their teacher (Jimmy Stewart) who taught them all about the idea of superior beings and the worthlessness of their 'inferior' counterparts.

The two men throw a party, with the body of the friend David dumped in a large chest, (unbeknownst to their party guests) to further 'celebrate' what they've done. Two of the guests are David's father and his girlfriend who become more and more concerned that David is late to the party. As too does the former teacher (Jimmy Stewart) who also has an invite. The plot moves forward with the two men finding it hard to conceal their growing guilt and suspicion growing.

I think the best part of this film it's a slow build. Hitchcock doesn't give us suspense overload he slowly introduces new pieces of the puzzle. In this way our sympathies for the characters change over the course of the film. The two leading actors (Granger and Dall) do a perfect job of showing the eventual change guilt has on them. Jimmy Stewart is almost the 'detective' attempting to slowly unravel everything he sees and hears. But more than that even his character changes with the events that unfold.

It's so beautifully acted and scripted (taken more or less from the excellent play by Patrick Hamilton) that you can't help but make this one of your favourite Hitchcock films (even if Hitch was less than sure about it himslef).
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 11 October 2017
This has to be my least favorite of Hitchcocks films. I think the premise is a little silly. The suspense is no where near Rear window or Vertigo or Dial M for Murder. Nevertheless if you are a fan of Hitchcock or want to explore classic film I would definitely suggest you watch and make up your own mind. Also If you like the 40s/50s era of glamour then you might like it. It has beautiful clothes, a dinner party, good manners and a spectacular view of New York City!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 22 February 2017
Excellent condition
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 April 2017
Excellent
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 14 September 2016
i think boys eat cats
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 September 2017
For my mum.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 August 2017
As described
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 8 December 2008
I have a feeling that this Hitchcock is an underated movie. Harly anyone seems to know of it when I mention it but I haven't stopped talking about its brilliance all week! It is an amazing film, filmed in one room, based on a play (which is very obvious because the actors perform in a specific way that would only be linked to a play i.e. standing so that they are all facing the front with no backs facing the audience) which is of course based on the Leopold-Loeb case of 1920's America. James Stewart is as usual comical and quick- thinking, with John Dall and Farley Granger as the two murderous men, who decide to commit the perfect crime by murdering their friend and putting him inside a chest in their front room, then inviting all his friends and family round for tea. Things are going fine but then James Stewart begins to get suspicious... One word - Classic!
11 Comment| 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 10 August 2017
This is Hitchcock directing James Stewart and as a result it was always going to be a superb film, I was very surprised that I had not heard of it, given how many of Hitchcock's films are critically acclaimed and routinely recommended. This film I only heard about when carrying out a google search or browsing wikis, I cant remember which, I found it recommended as an existentialist film.

The film's opening scene is a bit of a shocker, the first cut which I watched features a scream and someone has obviously been killed off screen, a small rope is produced and it is evident a strangulation has taken place, however, I discovered this was a censored cut, as the second version actually features the strangulation, or at least it opens with the two perpetrators standing either side of the victim who stands about to collapse with the noose around his neck. Now, it is done more theatrically, perhaps, than a lot of the present day shockers both takes surprised me, I thought, wait, you're going to begin with this?! What can possibly follow this?

Far from being anti-climatic the rest of the feature is pretty smart and has a perfect pace, the killers are friends of the victim (this reminded me of the talented Mr Ripley) and their motivations are examined throughout the length of the feature, they rationalise their actions, one to the other discussing the crime, then with guests who visit the crime scene for a pre-planned dinner party, then once again with one another, just out of ear shot of a maid and finally when confronted by one of the guests who have returned on an invented pretext who has succeeded in rumbling their game, that clever sleuth.

On one level it is a simple whodunnit, two perps with very different personalities, one the classical, heartless, cold as ice killer, trying to commit the prefect crime practice murder as an art form, the other with motive but full of regret, drowning is sorrows with alcohol, actually eager to confess. During the dinner party the murder weapon moves in and out of view, so confident is one of our killers that he actually hands it over to a guest, motives are also openly talked about. When finally the confrontation between sleuth and perps takes place the more remorseful one telegraphs what has been taking place by crying out "Cat and Mouse, Cat and Mouse, who is the Cat and who is the Mouse?".

What makes it more of an existentialist movie, I think, and it is a far, far cry from any of the other movies which I have heard described as existentialist such as The Seventh Seal our other movies by that director, is the content of some of the dinner party conversation and the motivation of one of the killers.

It is a lot of uber men/superman versus inferior/dumb masses kind of thinking, there is someone who appears unashamedly to endorse their message, which one of the perps is almost ready to confide in, excited to have found a like minded person but it all is quickly halted by another guest who finds the whole table talk grotesque. It is Stewart's character who appeared to be warming to the idea of the murder as art and uber men idea, when he returns to the crime scene to confront the killers he actually narrates his own self-disgust that his thinking could result in others taking actions as they did.

This I thought was really interesting but beyond making the point it doesnt go anywhere particularly, I did think about Hitchcock as director and how this could be a response to pundits suggesting that his films could inspire or motivate killers who watched them to commit actions in the real world. The point is not exactly laboured but Stewart's character, who has a fire arm at this point, states that he now will be responsible for their deaths but rather than shooting them he uses the gun to let loose shots and draw the attention of the authorities. In a way this could be comment on responsibility and capital punishment for murder.

The entire film is shot in a single room, the set is not fantastic, in fact it is obvious that it is a set and it could as easily have been a stage production, however, those are not entirely criticisms and the writing itself, direction and acting I thought was fantastic. Naturally focus is going to be on James Stewart, rightly so as none of the rest of the cast can hold a candle to his performance and stage prescience but I also thought that the two killers were acted very well, no hammy over acting at all, which can be a factor in older single set, "stage", shots. I would not for a second suggest that this ranks alongside movies like 12 Angry Men, which is also a single stage performance, nor even many of Hitchcocks superior works, though I would still recommend it.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 June 2013
If there is anything notable that makes "Rope" stand out from any other Hitchcock film, it's the fact that most of the movie is in one single shot, I say mostly because there are two direct cuts very early on in the movie, the first being directly after the opening credits to jump into the set, and there's just one at the 15-20 minute mark. But after that, no more direct cuts in the whole film, just a long shot which due to camera film storage capacity zooms in on people's shirts and zooms out again every once in a while. "Rope" was originally a stage play which means that the single shot approach makes sense, but the cinematography and photography of the film is still exceptional and creative to capture the best of the performances and heighten the tension.

The premise of "Rope" is deceivingly simple, two young men commit murder and hold a gathering to effectively pull off the ultimate crime. Dick Hogan and John Dall play the murderers with Hogan being the confident, oppressive figure relishing in the art of killing and John becoming more and more unsettled as the film goes on, always conscience a body is always on the brink of being discovered. But of course the star of the film is James Stewart's Rupert Cadell who gives a wonderful performance. The rest of the cast is well acted and consistent, barely a weak performance in sight. But "Rope" needs captivating story and a script to convey it more than anything in its limited set - and it delivers. Can anyone justify murder? Does anyone have the right to take another's life for any reason? These questions are the core of the story with Hogan's confidence in the right to kill being slowly etched away by Rupert Cadell who was partial to the concept, but would never do such a thing in reality. The script, particularly in the final act is incredible.

So overall this is another great Hitchcock but highly underrated. The single shot makes you sink into the film but the tension is so high as it progresses that you can't ever be bored. A few details, the back of the room with the changing light as the day progresses is a nice touch but the solid performances and great scripting and direction are the highlights in this (almost) one shot film about murder and where to draw the line. Just one note - the blu-ray makes the film crystal clear and there's no visual or audio problems, everything is crystalline here.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)