Genres

Visitors Review

gazzo-2 2012-05-22 11:46:57

its pretty good actually

......be like if some smiling killer showed up in Dennis the Menace'sneighborhood I guess. I have seen many many of Hitch's flix, butsomehow this one had eluded me til I got the DVD a couple days ago. Sowhat did I think? Few things--it Does have a couple weaknesses:Droopalong pace, Charlie's inexplicable rapid 'Key to the City' risesimply because(why? He came in on a train and had some money? whatgives?), and the implausible freedom given the, ummm, survey-takers ina private home. Riggggggghttttt.....What works? About everything else-Terry Wright's great fragile heroine,Cotton's smiling killer in a suit, the dithering Mother, 'Clarence' asthe harmless helpful father, and of course fun bits by Hume Cronyn andthe little bespectacled daughter. I liked that stuff.You gotta like as well the usual Hitch trademarks-clouds of smokebillowing behind a villain, near-fatal 'accidents' in the backyardaround the home, some rather nasty things more than hinted at duringthe movie but never stated out-right.I have been wondering, for example, as sick as this sounds, was therean incestuous connection between the two Charlies? You def. know thatJoseph Cotton harbors Very inappropriate feelings towards YoungCharlie, some reviewers seem to think that this was more than justimplied. There was def. a lot Wrong in that family below the surface, iknow that.Anyways--good solid flick, well done all in all.*** outta **** or so.

schappe1 2012-05-22 03:42:48

Doubtful

This may be Hitchcock's favorite film but it's hardly his greatest. OK, soit's a look at the underside of small-town Americana. Or is it? The bad guyhere is a visitor. There's nothing wrong with the townspeople here. The evildoesn't emanate from the town itself. It's a reasonable but slow-moving andrather dull character study, with the only action being the poorly stagedfinale. Joseph Cotton is excellent, Teresa Wright fine and the rest of thecast is fine. But this is very minor Hitchcock. Of course, I didn't like Blue Velvet much either. Pleasantville is betterthan either one by a country mile.

Gondemaria 2012-05-21 06:17:19

Hitchcock's favourite?

I was surprised to learn that Hitchcock valued this film above hisother works. While not a bad film, "Shadow of a Doubt" is so devoid ofthe director's trademark suspense that I would strongly protest againstits labelling as a "thriller".The plot trundles along nicely as Uncle Charlie, on the run, decides tolay low at his sister's house. However a succession of clues and anintervention by two mysterious police officers soon lead Charlie'sniece (also Charlie) to begin to unravel the sinister truth behind hischarming exterior.Joseph Cotten is fine as Uncle Charlie, convincing in his role ascaring yet reclusive relative. However his portrayal of the murderousside of the character is hindered by a script which fails to impressupon the viewer any real sense of danger from the man. This affected myentire experience of the film, as I began not to care whether he wasfound out or not.Teresa Wright is also capable as Young Charlie, depicting strength andvulnerability.The rest of the cast is able, those in the family convincinglydepicting an average American household (though the little girl annoyedme somewhat). I enjoyed the discussions about the perfect murder(foreshadowing the far superior "Rope") between Travers and Cronyn,however irrelevant they seemed. The theme of danger in an average lifealso appealed to me.Yet the film is let down by a poor script. The plot was convoluted,often veering erratically down pointless dead ends (the romance subplotbetween Young Charlie and the inspector seems particularly irrelevant).Believability was stretched as the film approached a disappointinganti-climax."Shadow of a Doubt" is in many ways well executed; yet it lacked theessential substance and tension to properly capture my attention.6/10

adam-234 2012-05-20 18:47:20

one of the master's best...

One of the lesser known by Hitchcock, this film is art, suspense AND greatplot all rolled-in-one. Acknowledged to be one his favorites, check it outif you haven't done so and it'll probably become one of yours aswell...

MightyGorga 2012-05-19 21:27:02

Not perfect - but close

In my opinion, this is the best of Hitchcock's movies. Though it doessometimes drag, particularly in the final forty-five minutes or so, itdrawsa great deal of strength from the two leads - Teresa Wright, who avoids the"terrified innocent" trap and makes Young Charlie into a courageous andconvincing heroine, and Joseph Cotten, who, as always, excels. Few actorscould portray Uncle Charlie's combination of charm and all-consuming evilaswell as Cotten, and his performance, inexplicably snubbed at the Oscars, isthe single greatest aspect of this fine film.

2012-05-19 12:43:41

Charlie, think. How much do you know about your uncle?

Having just watched Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt (1943) last night for the first time, I was surprised at how good it was, and why I've never seen it before. I mean, I am a fan of Hitchcock, and I've seen many of his movies, but to have heard so little of this particular film seems puzzling to me, as it's an excellent film, and worthy of a lot more recognition than it seems to have gotten. Either that or I just need to get out of my cookie jar more often...Anyway, the film, directed by Alfred Hitchcock and written by Thornton Wilder, stars a wonderful cast including Teresa Wright, who appeared with Gary Cooper the previous year in The Pride of the Yankees (1942), Joseph Cotten (Citizen Kane, The Third Man), and Henry Travers (High Sierra, Mrs. Miniver, It's a Wonderful Life). Also making an appearance is Hume Cronyn making his film debut in a supporting role as a mousy neighbor.The story involves a family in a small California town, and the impending arrival of a relative, Charlie (Cotten), from back east. Most anticipatory is younger Charlie (Wright), named after her uncle, as she feels a deep, almost telepathic connection to this man she hasn't seen in quite awhile. Now, before Charlie's departure for California, we get a general sense of unease, as it seems Charlie is involved in something of a sinister nature. Upon arriving in California, the visit seems to be going well, as the family welcomes him with open arms, but soon we learn that trouble has followed Charlie in the form of two rather shady individuals who present themselves with a certain amount of deception, which is elaborated on later. The older Charlie's behavior begins to change subtly, perceptible only to the younger Charlie and us, the audience. As various bits of information are disseminated, the younger Charlie's begins to realize that her uncle may harbor a terrible secret that could tear apart the very fabric of her family. As her uncle's slick veneer is slowly peeled away, she eventually learns the truth, with the older Charlie realizing that the relative safety he sought in coming to stay with his sister and her family is in jeopardy. What lengths will he go to to protect himself from his past?The film starts out very slowly, but it's obviously deliberate, as the sense of dread within the viewer is cultivated in meticulous fashion. This seems a common tactic with Hitchcock, but I did get the feeling it was more drawn out here than in most of his other films. The pacing felt very similar to Rebecca, another Hitchcock film, which was released in 1940, but while that film had a much more grandiose feel to it, this film keeps things fairly simple, which really works well. There is a good amount of leaving the viewer in the dark within the first hour or so of the film, but when the secrets of the character is revealed, the plot points prior to this fall into place nicely, making sense of these once less meaningful elements. Teresa Wright's character is wonderful as the perceptive and intelligent niece forced to make a very difficult decision between her family and her uncle, trying to deal with the consequences of whatever path she chooses. Cotten is the real standout performance in the film, presenting a very likeable character, with a highly polished exterior, but an exterior you learn is barely hiding a very ugly and, ultimately, dangerous core. He figuratively becomes the fox in the hen house, as his sinister nature encroaches upon this quiet, unassuming community. As I said before, the pacing is pretty slow, picking up moderately within the last 30 minutes (it has a running time of 108 minutes) to a very suitable and satisfying ending, one that provides a nice jolt during an already tense scene.The print provided by Universal for this release looks very good, despite a few hardly noticeable signs of age and wear. Special features include a featurette on the making of the film, detailing why Hitchcock considered this to be one of his favorite movies he made, production notes, drawings and photographs, recommendations (to other Hitchcock films), and a theatrical trailer for the film. All in all, and excellent, if underrated, Hitchcock classic.Cookieman108

2012-05-19 09:19:02

Hitchcock's Underappreciated Best

Will not leave a shadow of a doubt in your mind that it is one of Hitchcock's greatest, though it may not readily come to mind when his classic are discussed. This gem is both a knowing commentary on post-World War America, an innocent time slowly coming to terms with the evil in its midst, and a chilling (though probably unwitting) foreshadowing of things to come. The wholesome family life of the Newtons in one of the last sleepy towns in California, the final American frontier, hums along while Uncle Charlie's insidiousness slowly takes root, aided by the initial adoration of Charlie, his niece and psychic twin. The two eventually play out the enduring, mortal struggle between good and evil, but the ending is neither as clean and tidy as we'd like it to be in life nor as it was beginning to be in movies.

dumsumdumfai 2012-05-18 22:41:56

alreaaaaaaaaady then

as Ace Ventura would say. Isn't there enough comments about this filmalready? of course, you should read the ones under The Dark Knight..it's an encyclopedia by now.Every scene is so carefully crafted, every movement, dialogue, lightingchoices. Case in point : the dinner scene. The overall tone is verystrange, Cotten comes across in the entrance scene as scheming, dark,and brooding with untethered thoughts. Yet with this is the contrast ofa small town family reunion. The lauded closeness between the niece anduncle is kind of chilling with its undertone.The tension and sharp change in mode in restaurant scene near the endjust grabs you by the throat and strangles the air out of it. Only partI didn't like was the melodramatic train ending. Give it maybe another10 minutes - milk it with more suspense and maybe less dialogue, moreglances. But there was not way as Cotton's characters seems to need areason for remorse but can't find one.

2012-05-18 00:06:16

Shadow of a Doubt

This review is from: Shadow of a Doubt (DVD) An early Hitchcock and according to his biography one of his favorites. Joseph Cotton is great and to see Santa Rosa in the early pre-war days is very enjoyable.

gengar843 2012-05-17 14:05:35

Not exactly Hitch's "greatest"

WARNING* SPOILERS * WARNING* MANY SPOILERS*Just finished watching "Shadow of a Doubt" for the third time, and onceagain I come away feeling that I just watched a silly film. First, let'sjust say right away that Joseph Cotten does a MAGNIFICENT job, although Ithink Robert Mitchum is much superior in "Night of the Hunter." Underplayedby Cotten? Certainly I feel that Mr. Cotten's shift of demeanors is thehighlight of the entire experience. But here are some of my observations onplot holes and general silliness:1) The bank president barely gets ruffled at Uncle Charlie's $40,000deposit, which is equivalent to maybe $200,000 in today's dollars. Irealize that in those days there weren't drug czars, but organized crime wasbig business then, and Uncle Charlie's comments that he's just "in business"doesn't seem to make a dent in anybody's sensibilities, whereas the mentionof the word "embezzlement" makes everyone turn and look at Joe. The depositis made and seemingly a signature on a scrap of paper is enough "detail" forboth Charlie and the bankers. Nobody else seems to care much about UncleCharlie's riches either, except for another "merry widow." The detectiveson Charlie's trail don't seem to know that Charlie just visited the bank,and if they do, the $40,000 in cash doesn't seem to arouse their suspicions. 2) On the train, at the end, the two little kids are told to "run along andplay." Immediately after that, the train starts moving. Don't the motherand father have any concern that all three of their children are on thisdeparting train? Wouldn't Roger and Anne come back to tell Charlie that thetrain was moving? The entire scene seems rather contrived.3) Charlie's girlfriends (teenagers, right?) all seem inordinately drawn tomuch older men (the detectives). Notice Kathy always coyly eying upSaunders? And isn't Graham a little OLD for "little Charlie?"4) How is it that Uncle Charlie comes into Santa Rosa, virtually unnoticed,appears at the bank with loads of cash and no explanation, and the nextthing you know he's giving a speech and is a town HERO? I know he'scharming and a conniver, but how he comes to this is just not satisfactorilyexplained, and I think is a key element in the film, i.e., how Uncle Charlieis able to survive and get by in a world that he obviously hates.5) The fact that the OTHER suspect(in Maine)gets chopped up by propellorswhile fleeing does not necessarily clear Uncle Charlie. In fact, the photowas already, according to Saunders, on its way to be viewed inMassachussetts when the news in Maine broke. Wouldn't the police in Mass.want to show the photo ANYWAY, just as a matter of course, or of detail?Wouldn't there be ONE person in command who would INSIST that the finaldetail be worked out? I mean, OK, the other suspect is chopped up...thatdoesn't LOGICALLY clear Charlie? After all, there were no remains toidentify the other suspect; why not just "make sure?" Or is the plotelement of "not a very good detective" more far-reaching than just Graham?Does Hitch think ALL cops are boobs?6) What was the point of the "hanging sub-plot" where Charlie's mother wasstarting to get suspicious of foul play? Why did that end abruptly? OK, I've made my points.I DID like the movie, though. I give it 3 stars out of 4 for a number ofreasons: it IS suspenseful, well-acted, well-photographed, nicely-paced, andhas great humorous moments.It's hard to pick a favorite Hitchcock movie, but right now, mine are Northby Northwest, Saboteur, Topaz, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, and Frenzy.

2012-05-16 19:58:54

Another Hitch masterpiece

This is one of my favorite `Hitch' films, though it certainly never received the name recognition of `North by Northwest', `The Birds', or `Psycho'.Perhaps the reason it is so endearing is that the movie's plot orbits around a `typical' American family in a `typical' American town, complete with a mother, father and siblings (unlike, say, `The Birds' or `The Man Who Knew Too Much'). Needless to say, Hitchcock once again intends to expose the dark side of human nature, but goes a step further here by showing it could be, well, in YOUR family (and at some level probably is).I have always been impressed with Hitchcock's cast selection not just of the main actors but the entire crew, and this film is no exception. Joseph Cotton (one of my favorites, I must admit) does his usual spectacular job as Uncle Charlie and Teresa Wright is fine as `niece' Charlie, but accolades go to Henry Travers and Patricia Collinge as the parents, and to Hume Cronyn as the nosy, slightly ghoulish (and very funny) neighbor. Even little Ann Newton's `bookwormy' character (Edna May Wonacott) seems to have been carefully selected and she is perfect in her part.Hitch's direction is flawless and he once again employs his standard `techniques' (which he so refined over the years) to get our attention, reveal a `double meaning' or impart symbolism. There are also plentiful doses of humor and light-heartedness, which serve to help the movie flow at one level while contrasting with the ever-building darkness the viewer is being exposed to in the form of Uncle Charlie.I will not write a synopsis of the plot, there are plenty of those here to read. The DVD quality (both sound and picture) is very good - not "fantastic", but easily worthy of the purchase.People who need high action, noisy soundtracks, and blood (or who are simply put off by black and white movies) will be hopelessly disappointed and should not bother with `Shadow of a Doubt'. To everyone else, this film is a winner.

TheFiendsThatPlagueThee 2012-05-16 05:56:07

Terrific and suspenseful

When Uncle Charlie comes to visit the Newtons in their quiet town ofSanta Rosa, young Charlie (his niece, named after him) is thrilled.Thrilled that is, until she realizes that he is being pursued by twodetectives who suspect that he is the "Merry Widow" murderer. Variousthings make young Charlie suspicious of her uncle and this leads to anexciting climax.Shadow of a Doubt is a wonderful film which shows clearly Hitchcock'sskill at building and maintaining suspense throughout a film's run. Butit is not just the suspense that makes this movie work. The wholepresentation of Santa Rosa-the feel of a sleepy, pleasant littletown-is charming, the dialog is witty and entertaining and thecharacters are well developed, interesting and well acted. No one doesa bad job in this film and they all fit together perfectly within theframework of the story.Definitely recommended.

theowinthrop 2012-05-16 16:50:57

The Problem Of Alfred Hitchcock: A Heretical View

SHADOW OF A DOUBT is not my favorite Hitchcock film. I suspect thatSTRANGERS ON A TRAIN or THE LADY VANISHES or REAR WINDOW are betterfilms. They seem to be better to me. But SHADOW OF A DOUBT, good filmthat it is, always disappoints me because of what I term is the problemof Hitchcock. His problem is his inability to resolve issues properly(or even present them properly).In many of his films, Hitchcock starts off certain points regarding thecharacters that are never fully developed properly. For example, inNORTH BY NORTHWEST there is an undercurrent of homosexual jealousy byMartin Landau towards the relationship of his boss James Mason with EvaMarie Saint. It culminates in the scene when, to prove a point aboutSaint's betraying Mason, Landau fires her gun point blank at a shockedMason. Mason suddenly realizes it is loaded with blanks (that Saintfired it at Cary Grant, pretending to critically wound him, to impressMason). He reacts swiftly, punching Landau in the face (he did not likebeing surprised like that), but fully believing what Landau showed him.This sequence seems to be setting up some future point in the film.It's a weak point possibly, but I always felt that the moment ofresolution was that Mason should have been the man who stood over Grantand Saint when they were holding onto the cliff at Mount Rushmore, notLandau. Because, if you remember, in a desperate plea, Grant says,"Please help us." I have always felt that Hitchcock missed the boat inputting the totally malevolent Landau over Grant and Saint at thatmoment - it should have been Mason. Because Mason, despite his ownanger, did at one point like Saint (he showed a better side to hisnature). If Saint had been the one hanging on for dear life, andpleading, and Mason after an initial moment of anger overcame it andstarted rescuing her just as Landau turned up, the ending would havebeen more interesting. Landau would then have felt betrayed by Mason,and might have pulled out a gun and shot him (this time fatally). Itwould have carried the relationship question to a more logical point.The same thing happens here in SHADOW OF A DOUBT. Young Charlie'sproblems with Uncle Charlie are compounded by the general liking feltby most people in the town for the latter. But if you notice, atvarious points in the film, members of Young Charlie's family do have"shadows of a doubt" about Uncle Charlie. Her father (Henry Travers) ishumiliated in his bank job by Uncle Charlie hinting he is an embezzler,and that the books are cooked. Take a look at Travers when JosephCotton leaves laughing. It is one of curiosity and wonder compared tohis general acceptance before. Young Charlie's two younger siblingsnotice Uncle Charlie's odd behavior destroying a newspaper to show thema trick, and then forgetting the trick (the paper had an article aboutthe "Merry Widow" murder mystery. But finally there is Young Charlie's mother. She is mothering sister -we learn that she can't help it, after her parents died she only hadher little brother Charlie (reading between the line she probablyhelped turn him into the selfish monster he is by spoiling him). Butafter the last of a series of accidents befall Young Charlie, as theyall drive away to a social event, the mother says to herself that it isstrange that so many bad things happened to her daughter, as thoughthey were planned. This is never followed through (a point brought outon this thread in another comment). It should have been.Given her incredible fondness for her worthless brother, it would havebeen more interesting if Hitchcock had ended the film with a slightlydifferent conclusion on that train. Suppose, while Uncle Charliepurposely delays his niece from departing the train, his sister(wondering what is delaying Theresa Wright) re-boards the train at adifferent door to catch Cotton trying to push Wright off. At that pointa moment of truth might have occurred to the mother - and of shock. Itwould have been more interesting if in rescuing Wright, the motherpushes Cotton off the train into the path of the oncoming locomotive.Why Hitchcock or Thornton Wilder did not see such a simple conclusionto the problem (tying in with the idea of a "shadow of a doubt" theme)is just beyond my comprehension.

2012-05-16 01:19:37

Superb!

"Shadow of a Doubt" is nothing short of chilling. The story itself is very disturbing. It's about a family in a peaceful, small town, who are excited about a visit from their favorite relative. However, "Uncle Charlie" turns out to be the notorious "Merry Widow Murderer". The characters a smart and deep, the dialouge is witty, and the suspense creschendos right up the the nail-biting climax. The film is also a disturbing look at morality and values in the life of a working class family. This is a thriller that will haunt you forever, trust me. Just as potent, if not more, than any modern thriller. One of my favorite films directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

Exploding Penguin 2012-05-13 18:02:45

The Master at his best.

I own the Hitchcock collection (14 films in toto), and while this isn't myfavourite of the bunch ('Psycho' is one of my favourite movies of all time,and 'Birds' never gets old), I like to watch it every now and again toremind myself what it means to make a "suspense film", and why Hitchcock wasand always will be the master of this craft.To give away even the slightest story detail would ruin it for new viewers,because it is essential that everyone begin with the wrong impressions ofthe major characters. This allows Hitch to pull off his famous 'twists'throughout the course of the movie, hitting you every now and then withsomething you simply weren't expecting.One of my favourite elements in the movie is the ongoing dialogue betweenHenry Travers and Hume Cronyn, avid mystery readers who are constantlydiscussing the best ways to murder each other. Apart from being a bit ofcomic relief in an otherwise very dark film, it also demonstrates howlightly people think of murder and murderers...until they encounter themface-to-face.My advice then, if you want to see this movie, is not to learn anythingabout it beforehand. Going in with no knowledge will increase the movie'sinitial impact, and will help you to appreciate why Hitchcock was the'Master of Suspense'. This is a taut thriller with no gratuitous violence,foul language, or mature situations.(Hitch considered it 'a family film'.)Enjoy!

2012-05-13 01:12:15

A Monster Lives Among Us

Shadow of a Doubt was Alfred Hitchcock's favorite among all his films. It's easy to see why. Shadow of a Doubt shows how we can have monsters living among us -- monsters who may be the people we love and care for the most. The great Joseph Cotten -- one of the most underrated actors of all time -- plays Uncle Charlie with great, seething menace and yet shows such charm and likability on the surface that we can see why his family loves him. It was rare to see such a portrait of such unrepentant evil on film during that time. But in "Shadow," Hitchcock unhesitatingly shows that even in the most genial, friendly atmosphere, pure evil can survive and even flourish. Cotten's Uncle Charlie is a serial killer, but is able to win the entire town of Santa Rosa over with his charm and shows just how frighteningly easy it is for the devil to live among us. The story resonates even more now since the world has been exposed to people like Ed Gein, Charles Whitman, John Wayne Gacy, David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer -- people whose seeming normality masked unimaginable evil. It's a Hitchcock masterpiece that only gets better and more timley with age.

2012-05-12 03:06:08

Danger from Within

Santa Rosa is a typical American town and the Newtons are a typical 1940s American family. The father loves plotting elaborate imaginary murders with the quirky next door neighbor. The mother is a housewife obsessed with egg whites and slipcovers. The children are off-beat cherubs. At the beginning of the film, the oldest, a young woman named Charlie played by Theresa Wright, looks forward to a visit from her favorite relative, her mother's brother - Uncle Charlie. When he arrives, the happy reunion chills when Charlie suspects that her Uncle Charlie might be a serial killer known as "The Merry Widow Strangler". Uncle Charlie is all the more menacing given his physical beauty and his trusted position in the family. We prefer our monsters to be ugly, recognizable and locked outside our homes. As Charlie becomes more convinced of his guilt, her uncle plays on her love of her mother and fear of scandal to convince her to keep his secret. The audience realizes that Uncle Charlie must kill his niece long before she does. Hitchcock's picture of goofy familial normalcy and the audience's growing awareness of danger from within builds the tension to the very last scene.This movie is one of Hitchcock's best psychological dramas. The story is tight and fast paced. The black and white cinematography enhances both the sense of post World War II ordinariness with bright, sunny scenes of family life and suspense heightened with bright lights and dark shadows. Point of view is crucial to the telling of this piece. For example, Hitchcock allows us inside Charlie's head the moment she realizes the truth. The camera pulls back and up abruptly like a swift intake of breath. The casting is superb with Theresa Wright, Joseph Cotton and Hume Cronyn.

Boyo-2 2012-05-11 22:27:19

Why, Uncle Charlie

One of the Masters best but probably does not receive all the kudos andattention since there is no BIG SCENE or megastars in the title roles. Butthe movie is worth seeing at least twice, and you can't say that about a lotof movies. Teresa Wright is perfectly cast as Charlie who is named afterher much-beloved Uncle Charlie, who played by Joseph Cotten. I did not knowMacDonald Carey was in this movie but he's very good. I only knew him fromwhatever soap he was on. The movie has a lot going for it but I appreciated the small things in it -such as little sister Ann always reading, the next-door neighbor played byHume Cronyn, who is obsessed with murder mysteries and there is a barmaidwho speaks like she's on too many sedatives. Cotten and the soundtrack go a little overboard at times but overall this isa classic from Hitchcock and should be respected as such.

2012-05-10 16:22:58

Not that impressed

I was definitely hyped for this movie when I first saw it, if only becauseit was a young Joseph Cotten in a Hitchcock movie. This was a veryenjoyable movie, but I have to agree that this is definitely NOTHitchcock'sbest; with Psycho, Vertigo, and Spellbound easily beating it out.Of course, I can't blame either Hitchcock or Cotten for thisdisappointment.In 1943 when this movie was made, Hitchcock had just moved to Hollywoodfrom England and had to deal with big time movie producers, the mostnotablebeing David Selznick. Selznick thought he knew how to make a movie, andpressured Hitchcock to make cookie-cutter movies that would make big bucksat the box office. Hitchcock and Selznick continually fought about whatshould be a good movie. The two were like oil and water--they didn't mix,and neither does this Hitchcock production. Although Jack Skirball doesgetcredit with the production, it's either in the opening or endings creditswhere you can see the words "a David O. Selznick production," a goodindicator that Selznick was involved somehow. It's only after Hitchcock isreleased from Selznick's grasp that you see some of his truly great movieslike Psycho, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, andVertigo.So there's the history lesson why Shadow of a Doubt is not as good as otherHitchcocks. But that's not to detract from some of the ingenious parts ofthe movie. Thorton Wilder's writing is accurate of how a large familyconverses: by continually overlapping and interrupting each other. (ormaybeit was Hitchcock's idea, either way it was great!) And, of course, thegreatest part of it all, Henry Travers, the angel from It's a WonderfulLife, and a very young Hume Cronyn discussing how to kill each other! Whata great idea! I doubt very much if Selznick could have thought of that.Allin all a very enjoyable movie.

smatysia 2012-05-10 06:19:01

Hitchcock is truly the master of suspense

I had never heard of this film, but taped it anyway just because thedescription mentioned Alfred Hitchcock. This is a very good movie. Moderndirectors and scriptwriters should study Hitchcock and discover that you donot need to splatter the screen with gore to create suspense. I alsodiscovered Teresa Wright in this film and she was fantastic. I must consultimdb to find other films featuring her.