The Haunting (1963).

Review #921: The Haunting.

Cast:
Julie Harris (Eleanor "Nell" Lance), Claire Bloom (Theodora), Richard Johnson (Dr. John Markway), Russ Tamblyn (Luke Sanderson), Fay Compton (Mrs. Sanderson), Rosalie Crutchley (Mrs. Dudley), Lois Maxwell (Grace Markway), and Valentine Dyall (Mr. Dudley) Directed by Robert Wise (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture and #725 - The Day the Earth Stood Still)

Review:
The Haunting (based of the novel The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson) is a psychological horror film that uses its atmosphere and settings to make a a cohesively made movie with a good degree of terror over horror. Wise's direction, along with production design by Elliot Scott and cinematography by Davis Boulton, are the easiest standouts of the movie, all being good at letting the mood be chilling along with cleverly crafted. One of my favorites is the spiral staircase, which is used in numerous shots to great effect. The acting is also good, with Harris making this fragile character easy to root for along with useful to watch. There is just something about her and how she moves and how she talks to the others that really make this character readily compelling. Bloom is interesting, with a good deal of entertainment and alluring nature to her. The rest of the cast is also pretty good at their roles, whether it be scientific (Johnson) or slightly strange (Crutchley). The way that they interact with each other goes with the mood, where numerous characters talk at the same each other, with later scenes having the benefit of sound effects when it is required. The movie is as scary as one lets it be; it doesn't rely on any real horror, but it works on a psychological kind of level of terror that works for the most part. The climax is a fairly interesting one (using some of the aforementioned set pieces), though admittedly Maxwell's character almost derails it (though obviously it matters to the plot), before an ending that closes acceptably enough. It isn't a quick burn to get some chills, but it definitely has enough moments to make it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).

Review #920: Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Cast:
Kevin McCarthy (Dr. Miles Bennell), Dana Wynter (Becky Driscoll), Larry Gates (Dr. Dan Kauffman), King Donovan (Jack Belicec), Carolyn Jones (Theodora "Teddy" Belicec), Jean Willes (Nurse Sally Withers), Ralph Dumke (Police Chief Nick Grivett), Virginia Christine (Wilma Lentz), and Tom Fadden (Uncle Ira Lentz) Directed by Don Siegel (#893 - Dirty Harry)

Review:
What is it about science fiction that entertains us so much? What is it about horror and and aliens that lure us so much to watch? The 1950s definitely had a great deal of entertainment with these things, but this film (based of the novel "The Body Snatcher" by Jack Finney) manages to shine on its own, becoming a film worth discussing in part because of how it constructs himself. Even if one treats it as just a horror flick (as what the director and writers have stated they were intending), It's an interesting horror film in how it invokes fear and fright from how little you really see of the terror. The film also has decent cinematography by Ellsworth Fredericks, with the shadows and lighting working nicely with the sets. McCarthy is a good lead, fitting as a storyteller and hero like a glove. Wynter is also pretty decent, having some chemistry with McCarthy while also proving to be capable for some scenes. Donovan and Jones do a pretty fine job as well in accompanying the others in a movie that always seems doing something beneath the surface. Nobody is killed on screen, nor is there much in terms of what the pod people are (aside from a part near the climax), but it has a great degree of layers within this thriller. Numerous things have been written about it being an allegory for things in the 1950s (this was the Cold War era after all), but the easiest one can be the way that people can act towards cultural things with a sense of unfeeling. While the nature of how the narrative is set up may be a bit clunky (in short, it's a flashback narrative), the movie is at least swift enough to never cop itself out too much. There is something really interesting about the way it speaks about conformity and autonomy in this film, and it doesn't bash you over the head with any sort of overwrought kind of nature. On the whole, this is an entertaining film that inspires fear along with thought in part due to a fine cast and fine direction that work together to make a critical film from the 1950s.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Kong: Skull Island.

Review #919: Kong: Skull Island.

Cast:
Tom Hiddleston (James Conrad), Samuel L. Jackson (Preston Packard), John Goodman (Bill Randa), Brie Larson (Mason Weaver), John C. Reilly (Hank Marlow), Corey Hawkins (Houston Brooks), John Ortiz (Victor Nieves), Tian Jing (San Lin), Toby Kebbell (Jack Chapman), John Ortiz (Victor Nieves), Corey Hawkins (Houston Brooks), Jason Mitchell (Glenn Mills), Shea Whigham (Earl Cole), Thomas Mann (Reg Slivko), and Terry Notary (King Kong, motion capture performance) Directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts.

Review:
It's easy to admit that the idea of doing a Kong reboot could be regarded as unneeded, if put in the wrong hands. Having the film be set in 1973 (one could almost nickname the movie "VietKong", actually) is certainly an interesting choice. For me, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and everything that it wanted to be: a fun good time. It's easy to admit that this is a popcorn movie, with a great amount of entertainment and characters that would be right at home in a explorer movie. For me, this might've been just a bit better than the 2014 Godzilla film (#582), as this film definitely lets one see more of Kong - right from the beginning, in fact. Obviously there is more to the movie than just Kong (with some fine CGI and some fine motion capture from Notary), there's also the fine effects of the Skullcrawlers and enough eye-candy (with regards to how the movie is shot) and cinematography that I appreciated. There isn't any kind of cop-outs nor teasing, it flat out goes for the thrill and chills - and it succeeds. Hiddleston is a fair enough lead, but obviously the big standout is Jackson, who just hams it up in such an adversarial manner that just clicks. Larson is also a fair lead as well, with Goodman being as gruff and relatable as ever. Reilly is also pretty fun, having an eccentric but likable presence. The rest of the cast does a fine job, being useful enough. Honestly the best kind of lead are leads who act and move convincingly without just being screamers/stilted glory hogs. They aren't too developed, but they also aren't too one dimensional either. There is a good mode of pace and design, with monster fights that manage to be riveting. Obviously this is a movie that works as fun entertainment (and something to try and get one ready for a Godzilla/Kong matchup a few years down the line), and there's nothing wrong with that. It achieves what it wants to accomplish without derailing itself at any point, while letting Kong be Kong.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Why Worry?

Review #918: Why Worry?

Cast:
Harold Lloyd (Harold Van Pelham), Jobyna Ralston (The Nurse), John Aasen (Colosso), Wallace Howe (Mr. Pipps), Jim Mason (James H. Blake), Leo White (The Mighty Herculeo), Gaylord Lloyd (Man), and Mark Jones (Mounted Captain) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, and #889 - A Sailor-Made Man, #903 - Dr. Jack) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, Safety Last!, Hot Water, Dr. Jack)

Review:
This was the fifth feature film featuring Harold Lloyd, and it was the first film with Jobyna Ralston as the leading lady, with Lloyd having married previous leading lady Mildred Davis during production of this film. At any rate, this is a film with a good amount of visual humor and an enjoyable cast along with a quick pace for a movie filled with gags. This time around, Lloyd plays a wealthy hypochondriac who goes on vacation on a small island in the Pacific - only to encounter a revolution, and a 7'2 giant played by John Aasen, one of the tallest actors in history. Aasen (along with the foreign setting) is used to make some clever enough gags, with one of my favorites being when Colosso knocks over some of the soldiers (standing in bowling formation) all over with a cannonball. Naturally there are some gags involving the unassuming nature Lloyd conveys, and some language gags that go by quickly enough. Lloyd and Ralston are fair enough together, doing all the cues you'd expect from these films, even if they spend a good chunk of the film apart from each other. Mason is a okay villain, not much of a bully but not too bad and pretty much what you'd expect from a dude wanting to just take over a country. On the whole, it's another good Lloyd film, and with a runtime of barely over an hour it's an easy one to recommend as a likely good time for someone looking for a good silent film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Incredible Journey.

Review #917: The Incredible Journey.

Cast: 

Muffy the Bull Terrier (Bodger), Syn Cat the Siamese cat (Tao), Rink the Labrador Retriever (Luath), Rex Allen (Narrator), Emile Genest (John Longridge), Sandra Scott (Nancy Hunter), John Drainie (Professor James Hunter), Marion Finlayson (Elizabeth Hunter), Ronald Cohoon (Peter Hunter), Tommy Tweed (The Hermit), Robert Christie (James MacKenzie), Beth Lockerbie (Nell MacKenzie), Beth Amos (Mrs. Oakes), Eric Clavering (Bert Oakes), Jan Rubeš (Carl Nurmi), and Syme Jago (Helvi Numi) Directed by Fletcher Markle.

Review: 

When I reviewed Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (#186) in June of 2012, I had noted (in a review typical of my writing for Season Two - not like the writing of today) that it was a remake of the 1963 film that was also made by Disney based off the novel of the same name by Sheila Burnford. The two films do depart in terms of the animals used for the film, with this film using a Bull Terrier, a Labrador Retriever, and a Siamsese cat with the remake using an American Bulldog, a Golden Retriever, and a Himalayan Cat. It's hard to say which of the two films is better, because they use different ways of telling the stories of the animals. Allen's narration of the journey does a fine job of toeing the line between telling the story and letting us see the animals interact with each other and the environments (some shots being filmed in Canada but other parts filmed in Sequim, Washington) around them, which are gorgeous to look at. The animals are clearly the star of the show, and they certainly make it easy to find them "cute", but also easy to root for. There's one scene where they encounter a bear, and it's an interesting scene to watch in part because of how it plays itself out. The human characters don't exactly have much in terms of personality, but they don't derail the movie too much. Tweed has a scene as a hermit that is pretty quirky (he has a crow who rests on his hat), but he is respectably entertaining. The family in the movie is mostly prevalent in the climax of the film, and while it is disappointing that they get the chunk of what is a pretty heartwarming return, it doesn't distract too much from a movie that is on the whole a good time. Both films are good flicks for children along with adults, with this one having its own sense of the wilderness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Bride's Play.

Review #916: The Bride's Play.

Cast:
Marion Davies (Enid of Cashell / Aileen Barrett), Jack O'Brien (Marquis of Muckross), Frank Shannon (Sir John Mansfield), Wyndham Standing (Sir Fergus Cassidy), Carl Miller (Bulmer Meade), Richard Cummings (John Barrett), Eleanor Middleton (Bridget), and Thea Talbot (Sybil) Directed by George Terwilliger.

Review:
Well, it's St. Patrick's Day, so why not a movie that has a main Irish character? (even if its plot device is likely not an Irish custom). This was a film meant as a starring vehicle for Marion Davies by producer by William Randolph Hearst, her lover. Davies is fairly interesting, doing her part with enough effort and competency. At 72 minutes, there is a mildly decent pace, though it feels like it will slog around the middle, and it certainly is a bit weird seeing Davies play her ancestor role (though it makes some sense). Standing and Miller are decent enough romantic leads (with O'Brien and Shannon being fairly tolerable supporting castmates) to carry their weight along with Davies. Simply put, the romance scenes are what you'd expect, being useful to watch if not too special. The love triangle is somewhat entertaining if you've never seen one of these before, but the real star of the show is the set design, with lavish costumes and a fine amount of flair to boot that helps give the movie some extra entertainment. It isn't so much that the movie is bland as it is just a movie with the similar kind of edges that you'd expect in other films, just with a supposed tradition of Irish "origin". In case you're wondering, here's how it goes: So the bride goes around and asks the round of the guests and asking each man he is the one she loves best (with all of them saying no), until the bride is left to say yes. Obviously this could be manipulated by a jilted guest, which to the credit of the movie does happen (albeit unsuccessfully for him), so whoopee for traditions. The bottom line: If you're a fan of these kind of romance movies (I don't dislike it, it's just I try to spread these out) or even a fan of silent films with a standout design and mostly standout cast, this might be the one for you.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, folks. How did I start the day off? Donating blood. See, you really can do something productive on this day.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Red Mill.

Review #915: The Red Mill.

Cast:
Marion Davies (Tina), Owen Moore (Dennis), Louise Fazenda (Gretchen), George Siegmann (Willem), Karl Dane (Capt. Jacop Van Goop), Russ Powell (Burgomaster), Snitz Edwards (Caesar Rinkle), William Orlamond (Governor), Fred Gamble (Innkeeper), and Ignatz (Himself) Directed by Roscoe Arbuckle.

Review:
Fear not, folks. Spring Break does not mean that Movie Night is on break. Reviews will pick up in the next few days, do not fear. 

The Red Mill was the first feature-length film directed by Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, who was working under the alias of William Goodrich due to the Virginia Rappe scandal, in which despite being found not guilty (after two hung juries), his reputation (and his name) had been tarnished. In any case, here's a movie set in Holland. It's not too terribly interesting, but it does have some decent moments, when it lets the players have fun and not go too slapsticky. Davies does a decent enough jobs with reaction shots, even when having to deal with a haunted mill. That, and an ice race. Seeing someone try to ice-skate (albeit with a little bit of help) is a nice little highlight. Moore is tolerable, though Fazenda and Siegmann stand out a bit more, seeming to have a little more chemistry with each other than the main two. The supporting cast is tolerable, with people that you'll recognize if you watch enough silent films, like Snitz Edwards, who hams it up as usual. The plot (adapted from a 1906 musical) gets itself tangled up a bit with romance between numerous characters, but it mostly handles itself without going overlong. Like a good deal of silent films covered on this show, the run-time (70 minutes) helps the film as this could've been a chore if it had been 90 minutes or longer. Honestly, there are better silent films, but at least this one has its moments and scenery along with moderately entertaining inter-titles that make it worth a glance.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Son of Kong.

Review #914: Son of Kong.

Cast:
Robert Armstrong (Carl Denham), Helen Mack (Hilda Petersen), Frank Reicher (Captain Englehorn), John Marston (Nils Helstrom), Victor Wong (Charlie), and Ed Brady (Red) Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong, #604 - Mighty Joe Young, and #709 - The Most Dangerous Game)

Review:
I will watch Kong: Skull Island next week, and as such it makes sense to do a review of a Kong movie. Enjoy, and I would encourage checking out the other Kong reviews done over the years: #283, #604 (made with the same creative team), and #726 - King Kong (1976).

Released just nine months after the first film had been released into theaters, Son of Kong is a sequel that isn't as well known (nor well-liked) as the original film. The movie begins with a brief recap of the first film (in dialogue), with the premise being set up by the time 10 minutes pass by. At least they didn't just take footage from the end of the movie. Some of the cast from the first film (Armstrong, Reicher, and Wong) appear in this one, and this is certainly one that gives Armstrong a bit more in terms of characterization. The tight budget and shooting schedule (screenwriter Ruby Rose described doing the movie as this: "If you can't make it bigger, make it funnier") meant that several models from the first film were reused, though Willis O'Brien does contribute stop-motion animation once again. It isn't until around 43 minutes that the Son of Kong appears in the movie, looking noticeably lighter skinned than his larger father, with facial expressions that seem to go with any sort of comedic moments the movie tries to do. The best thing I can say about the movie is that it isn't just a simple repeat of the first film, with semblances of romance and adventure taking the mantle this time. Unfortunately, it doesn't really have much of the tension nor importance the first film. Simply put, it's obviously not as good as the first one. It doesn't have too much spectacle and is quite rushed, giving a product that could have had potential had there been more time and length (this is only 69 minutes long) given to the movie. By releasing the movie quickly in order to ride off the memories people had of the original film, Son of Kong manages to be a middling sequel that could have been so much better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Hamlet (1990).

Review #913: Hamlet (1990).

Cast:
Mel Gibson (Prince Hamlet), Glenn Close (Queen Gertrude), Alan Bates (King Claudius), Paul Scofield (Ghost of Hamlet's Father), Ian Holm (Polonius), Helena Bonham Carter (Ophelia), Stephen Dillane (Horatio), Nathaniel Parker (Laertes), and Michael Maloney and Sean Murray (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) Directed by Franco Zeffirelli.

Review:
I had read this play when I was in senior year of high school (are you surprised?), and I felt that it was a great play, though (naturally) I read it just once. Around two years later, it only made sense that I get around to seeing the 1990 version of Hamlet, compliments of my British Literature class. Whether one interprets the play as one dominated by an inability to act or one of revenge, the movie Obviously the movie takes liberties with the play (after all, it only lasts 134 minutes), but the best thing I can say about the movie is that it is competent enough in the right areas to overcome any doubt of feeling not needed. I will admit, the first half of the movie did not exactly give too much hope; it wasn't a terrible half, but it didn't exactly inspire too much confidence in Gibson (nor the film) having the right kind of passion. However, the second half of the movie does bring itself some well needed tension, where Gibson, Close, and Bates get their chance to show their talents in the climax. It's a swift and satisfying one, where the fencing sequence with Gibson and Parker being a key highlight, obviously.

This is the kind of movie that may vary heavily depending on how one views Gibson in the role of Hamlet. It took me a while to really get invested in Gibson, but he manages to excel at times when having to make madness feel mad. His take on the famed "To be, or not to be" soliloquy has a degree of raw sincerity that works with the carnal nature of the film. Close and Bates are acceptable, with the former being good at showing the motherly love that creeps into the psyche and provides for a particularly interesting scene in the last half of the film. Bates does a decent performance, managing to balance a demeanor of power and sinister nature pretty well. The sets and costumes look well made, looking deft without being too distracting. For me, the movie is well crafted and slick enough with its energy that work in the right places. But I can't find myself wanting to watch this film again, and I think it's because it would be like trying to read Hamlet again; sometimes you just have to let things lie where they are. It is a movie worth recommending for at least one viewing, though I should note there are numerous adaptations of the play as well. There is the 1948 version with Laurence Olivier (which won Best Picture and three other Oscars that year) or the 1996 version by Kenneth Branagh that was the first unabridged theatrical film version of the play (which runs at just over four hours). Of course there's also the 2000 version that updates the setting to the modern day...or the story done with lions in The Lion King. Whatever the case, this is a decent enough film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Logan.

Review #912: Logan.

Cast:
Hugh Jackman (Logan / X-24), Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier / Professor X), Dafne Keen (Laura / X-23), Boyd Holbrook (Donald Pierce), Stephen Merchant (Caliban), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Zander Rice), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gabriela), Eriq La Salle (Will Munson), Elise Neal (Kathryn Munson), and Quincy Fouse (Nate Munson) Directed by James Mangold.

Review:
In the films that I have watched where Hugh Jackman played the Wolverine (X-Men (#008), X2 (#010), X-Men: The Last Stand (#012), X-Men: First Class (#042), X-Men: Days of Future Past (#584); I haven't seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse), it's evident to say that Logan stands out as the best of the bunch. Seeing this film in a packed theater certainly helped make for a homelier atmosphere, and the first five minutes certainly make for an intense if not riveting start to a movie that never really relents on entertainment. That's not to say that the movie is only full of action and language (after all, this is an R-rated film), as the film also has a good deal of emotional depth along with good performances from Jackman, Stewart, and Keen. Jackman and Stewart have already been in enough X-Men films together to make for fine chemistry already, but the road trip nature of this movie manages to give these two a good amount of highlights. Jackman and Keen have great chemistry together, just clicking immediately, with good writing also being helpful. Keen (in her first ever film) does a neat job, managing to bring out the humanity in what could've been either too sentimental or the opposite, and I hope to see more films revolving around this character. Jackman plays this withered role with the right kind of humility and timing, being entertaining as ever. Stewart certainly does a fine job once again, conveying the unstable and aged nature of the character in an emotionally satisfying way. Probably the only real flaw is that the villains aren't too great, though they do have a useful presence. Holbrook is pretty decent, managing to be arrogant enough to root against. Grant doesn't have too much screen time until the last half, but he is somewhat serviceable as a puppet master, just not very distinguishable from other mad scientists, minus hammy overacting at least. The action in the movie is thrilling, never managing to become too stale or rely on egregious killing just for killing. There is also a fairly competent story along with this movie, having a good time with a premise that could've been dreary with a lesser director/cast. On the whole, it's an excellent film that has both excitement and competency while being a good film for Wolverine to go out on.

On a sadder note, Robert Osborne, film historian and primary host for Turner Classic Movies (one of my favorite places to watch movies) died today at the age of 84. It is sad to see him pass on, particularly someone as knowledgeable and passionate about movies as he was. Rest in peace, Mr. Osborne.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Woman of the Year.

Review #911: Woman of the Year.

Cast:
Spencer Tracy (Sam Craig), Katharine Hepburn (Tess Harding), Fay Bainter (Ellen Whitcomb), Reginald Owen (Clayton), Minor Watson (William J. Harding), William Bendix ("Pinkie" Peters), Gladys Blake (Flo Peters), Dan Tobin (Gerald Howe), Roscoe Karns (Phil Whittaker), William Tannen (Ellis), and Ludwig Stössel (Dr. Lubbeck) Directed by George Stevens.

Review:
It has been a long time since I covered a Tracy-Hepburn film. In fact, the one I covered (#139 - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) was the last one, so it only seems fitting that after over 800 reviews, I cover the first movie to pair the two actors together. As it turned out, the two would make nine films together in 25 years of work, while this film won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, and it is easy to see why. Almost immediately, the chemistry between Tracy and Hepburn comes out beautifully on screen, with Tracy's no-nonsense attitude and levelheadedness meshing with Hepburn's wit and tenderness that is always interesting. Whether by acting or how it was written (done by Ring Lardner Jr. and Michael Kanin), they just click. There's a good amount of lines (both romantic and comedic), in part due to the execution by Stevens and a pretty good cast as well. Bainter and Watson are pretty good together, and Bendix provides a good chuckle or two along with Blake. This is just a movie that has a good time with its main two actors controlling the show with grace and charm, with an acceptable pace of 114 minutes. The movie earns a good payoff, and it does that for the most part, with the conflicts being believable, and the climax being somewhat serviceable. The ending was one that came about due to the reaction to the original ending shown to test audiences, in order to give Tess her "comeuppance". The ending (done over the objection of the screenwriters along with Hepburn) doesn't derail the movie, though this bit of irony (if you want to call it that, though I can't make waffles either) I guess makes the movie go full circle in a weird way. Regardless, the movie is a fine classic that I can recommend without any doubt in my mind due to the way that it is crafted.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Notorious (1946).

Review #910: Notorious.

Cast:
Cary Grant (T. R. Devlin), Ingrid Bergman (Alicia Huberman), Claude Rains (Alexander Sebastian), Leopoldine Konstantin (Madame Anna Sebastian), Louis Calhern (Captain Paul Prescott), Moroni Olsen (Walter Beardsley), Ricardo Costa (Dr. Julio Barbosa), Reinhold Schünzel (Dr. Anderson), Ivan Triesault (Eric Mathis), and Eberhard Krumschmidt (Emil Hupka) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, and #800 - Shadow of a Doubt)

Review:
It has been a while since I covered a Hitchcock film on Movie Night, but I figured that it was time to do one that I had been thinking of doing for quite a while now, which is a brilliant spy film noir. The easiest benefit (aside from Hitchcock's direction, which I'll get to) is the trio of Grant, Bergman, and Rains. All three shine in their respective roles, with Grant and Bergman having great chemistry together, particularly during one stretch where the two engage in kissing alongside dialogue and looking at each other, and the sequence (lasting two-and-a-half minutes) is not only one of the most famous sequences in film but also a passionate one to watch. The production code of the time prevented kisses longer than 3 seconds, but the sequence works better than a scene that would've been allowed to linger on that kiss, in part because of the tension one can see between the two being framed better. Rains is also a good villain, being carefully crafted while also having his own kind of chemistry with Bergman, with the right kind of pace and movements.  Konstantin (an Austrian actress popular during the pre-war times in Germany in her only American film performance) is also pretty good. The rest of the cast is also pretty good in their roles. The camera shots are also a key standout, from the shots that introduce Grant's character to the shots from a character's point of view during the climax, with every shot having a key element of finesse to it. The story is crafted excellently, with love and duty being a strong theme that makes for a riveting movie that also has moments of suspense that deliver a great payoff. The climax is a fairly good one, utilizing the characters and story to conclude itself without resorting to a big battle or anything that wouldn't have worked for this movie; this is the kind of a movie where it ends on a character going back to their own house (resigned to their fate), and it's just a neat way to end both that arc and the movie. At 101 minutes, it certainly is a movie with a good pace, and I can definitely recommend checking out this movie, especially if you are a fan of Hitchcock and his work.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.