1 A Must Have!
This is one of Hitchcock's more creative films. Aside from the famous long takes, the camera moves are even more subjective than usual, making "Rope" creepy and, of coarse, suspenseful. The dialog is probably the best piece of writing in any of Hitchcock's films. "The Lady Vanishes" still the best writing overall, "Rope" is not far behind. A gimmick film? Who cares. The premise is twisted and diabolically disturbing, just what you'd expect from the master. The over-the-top acting is shamelessly entertaining, you suspect Hitchcock was having a lot of fun making this technically complicated film. If you love cinema, you'll love "Rope." The DVD has a really good documentary detailing the insane production of "Rope" and the controversy surrounding the homosexual theme of the film. Truly a must have.
2 More than just a technical achievement
This 1948 Hitchcock film is mostly noted for its technical achievements. Hitchcock filmed this story, about two well-to-do rich kids who decide to commit a murder for the fun of it, as a play. Which, it in fact, originally was, though based in London and not New York. Technical limitations did not enable his original vision of making the entire picture one continuous long shot. Instead it is made up of several 8 minute continious shots. This was the length of film that fit into one reel. Using some very inventive cutting techniques the film appears as if it was filmed all in one take. This is more impressive when you see the actual size that color film cameras were during this time period. They were absolutely enormous, bigger than a man standing. To move the camera in and around the small stage space, many of the set pieces were set on castors and rolled about to keep out of the way of the camera. Some of the actors were noted in saying that they worried everytime they sat down, that there might not be a chair for them to fall into. Another achievement of the film is in terms of lighting. The apartment that the entire film is set in has several large windows overlooking the city. As the movie is more or less uninterupted from start to finnish we see the lighting change as the sun begins to set and night falls. It is a testament to this achievment that upon first viewing you don't really notice the effect. Yet, the filmakers took great pains to get it to look realistic, staging numerous reshoots for the final few scenes.
Though the technical achievements are quite wonderful, it is a shame that they have overshadowed what it really a very good bit of suspense. It seems the two high society murderers have planned a dinner party just after the murder. They store the corpse in a wood box that is featured prominently in the midst of the dinner. This creates an excellent mix of suspense and the macabre. Throughout the party the murderers become more unraveled even as they are enjoying their little game.
All of the acting is quite good. The two murderer (John Dall and Farley Granger) do a fine job of playing intelectual, society playboys, with a desire for excitement. It is slighly annoying watching their excited, nervous mannerisms (especially some stuttering by Jon Dall) but it is fitting with the characters. Their former instructor, Rupert Cadell, is played magnificently by the impecible James Stewart. This is a bit of departure from Stewarts typical roles. Here he is a tough, cynical intellectual. This was his first of four collaborations between Stewart and Hitchock and it is hard to imagine his role as Scottie in Vertigo without having first played in this movie.
The story unravels in typical Hitchock fashion. The suspense is built, then lessoned by some well timed comedy, and then built again to a final crescendo. Hitchcock was excellent as a technical director and allowed his actors the breathing room they needed for fine performances. In the end I left the picture feeling more excited about the superb storytelling than any particular technical achievement. It is a testament to his craft, that Hitchock allows you to leave a picture being enamored with his story over his technical achievements. Some of the greatest effects are those you don't notice because they seem so natural and real.
The documentary that accompanies the DVD version had some discussion of the homosexual nature of the two murderers as well and James Stewart's character. The production codes of the time would only allow the slightest hints of homosexuality in a motion picture. In fact I had no idea any character might be homosexual while watching the movie, and it was until I watched the documentary that I thought anything about it at all. Upon review I can see where the two murderers mannerisms may have pointed in that direction. Although James Stewarts presence is so wholesome and devoid of sex that any notion of the characters sexuality is more a point of trivia at this point.
Alfred Hitchock manages a triumph of technical brilliance and suspense in Rope. It's influence in the technical realm of cinema far outshines any effect the story has on future movies. This is a shame, for the story being told is one of suspense, macabre and excitement.
Like this review? (...)
3 Experimental thriller from the Master of Suspense
Rope was an experimental movie, filmed on a single set in as few takes as possible. The idea worked. The sun sets over the New York skyline, and day turns into night as the net gradually closes in on the two killers. Camerawork and lighting, a major challenge in view of Hitchcock's unprecedented requirements, create a haunting, tense, almost broody atmosphere.
Writers Hume Cronyn and Arthur Laurents work well with Patrick Hamilton's incredibly old-fashioned stage play, producing a sharp screenplay. The cast are generally excellent, even if Jimmy Stewart looks a tad uncomfortable in an atypical role.
4 Hitchcock classic which deserves greater respect
Two over-privileged young men commit the perfect murder. Their victim's body is hidden in a large trunk. They invite friends round for a small dinner party, amongst them their old tutor, Jimmy Stewart, the man who once claimed that some people have the right to commit murder ... the man who is most likely to expose their crime. They aim to subject themselves to his inquisitorial intrusion ... just to add a bit of spice to the murder. All this we learn, all this we are given. The tension in the film, the drama, lies in whether or not they will be caught ... and, if so, how?
"Rope" is wonderfully transparent in the way the drama is structured ... you can see the clues being put neatly into place, like a master builder placing brick upon brick. There is a famous Chekhov adage that if, in a play, the audience can see a rifle on the wall in Act One, it will have to be used in Act Two. In "Rope", a whole arsenal of weapons is hanging on the wall. You know why they're there, you don't know when they'll make their entrance into the plot.
Hitchcock films this story in what almost appears to be one long, long take ... as if he's just recorded a live stage production. The lack of cinematic sophistication only adds to the tension. It creates a sense of claustrophobia. The actors seem to be left to speak for themselves without the aid of rapid cutting or dramatic close ups. Words and action have to sustain the plot.
The camera work is simple - it follows the action. There is a magnificent scene where the surly maid clears away the dinner dishes. The camera follows her movements, almost intrusively, as she walks on and off the set, slowly removing the dishes. Tension mounts. Surely, she must discover the body next time?
Watch the background. The action takes place in a studio flat with a huge picture window at the back. As the drama unfolds, night slowly falls over the New York cityscape. Ominous clouds take on a Daliesque prominence, hugging the skyscraper silhouettes. It gives a real sense of time passing ... and impending doom.
And James Stewart plays a wonderfully understated role. He uncovers not a murder, but his own sense of guilt at suggesting that someone might have the right to kill. The melodrama is swept away. Suddenly we have a fragile human being caught up in his own intellectual trap. Thrown centre stage, Stewart's portrayal is superb.
A magnificent, and highly unusual movie.
5 Just okay
Hitch has made so many great films, he is allowed a dud. Obviously, "Rope" was originally a play. The original script seems to have been retained, instead of turning it into a screenplay. The novel technique of filming the movie as if it were a play (done by the AFT for television some years ago), does not really work. Film and the theater are two very different mediums and require very different treatments. To take a film and direct it as if it were a play denies the film of all the unique qualities that make it a film and not a play. It makes no sense. The lack of music, some long speeches, and use of mainly one set says play, not film. The plot was done better in the film "Compulsion", also based on the Leopold and Loeb case, with Orson Welles' great performance as Clarence Darrow. See that film instead.
And the acting. There seems to be much overacting, which can go unnoticed on the stage, which demands projection and forcefulness. However, screen performances, even if they are directed as if they were a play, demand more subtle, subdued performances. Some plays make a successful transition to film. O'Neill's "Long Day's Journey Into Night" I feel made a good transition to film It was not shot as Hitchcock did, but was shot as a film, although most of the film takes place in one or two rooms. The film is successful because of the intensity and passion of O'Neill's script. This was not adapted for the screen (it would have been a sacrilege) but is lifted almost verbatim from the original with some judicious editing. O'Neill's writing approaches sheer poetry at times and long speeches are never noticed. Sympathetic characters, and strong performances from the actors make this film a fine film-from-play, whereas "Rope" falls flat.
6 early masterpiece
"ROPE" was one of Hitchcock's early masterpieces. it was also Hitchcock's first attempt at a new pioneering technique in filmmaking. the technique consisted of shooting the film in 10 minute takes to achieve the effect of one long uninterrupted sequence. he was semi-successful. upon viewing the film one will realize why. however, the film still remains a powerful experiment in the macabre. with innuendos of homosexuality and the deranged misguided philosophy of Freidrich Nietzche rampant throughout, the film's sinister premise (loosely based on the famous 1924 Loeb-Leopold murder case) make it an essential part of any Hitchcock fan's library.
as for the DVD, the picture manifests some signs of age but is overall good. the audio is mono but is excellent for a film over 56 years old. the extras include an excellent documentary entitled "Rope Unleashed".
7 Hitchcock scores again.
Hitchcock's Rope is a great movie. It's a great plot and wonderful Hitchcock suspense. This is also a very experimental film in Hitchcock's cinematography. You see, this film was made up of 10 minute takes where the camara never cuts. It just follows the charactars around. Hitchcock used this technique to make it more suspenseful and, I guess, to make it seem that you were in the building where it takes place. The plot is where two students take the incomperable James Stewart's lecture on Nietzche's theories where the intellectuals could kill without being caught because they were smart and the two students kill a fellow classmate, Bentley, for intellectual thrills. After that, they throw a dinner party for Bentley's parents and their teacher, James Stewart. When Bentley doesn't show, the two killers engage in a conversation about the perfect murder which makes Stewart's charactar suspicious. It's a classic film that showcases the immeasurable talent of not only Alfred Hitchcock, but the great James Stewart. This movie has great moments all around, especially the scene where the two charactars strangle poor Bentley. This is a great Hitchcock classic that you should definatley see today.
8 Not a second too long
This was an important cinematic experiment, and a gem in Hitchcock's collection. Still, I have to say thank God it was only an hour and a half; not that its premise gets old quickly, but any premise is bound to age considerably over the course of a single, hour-and-a-half-long scene.
Basically - in a scenario _very_ loosely based on the Leopold-Loeb murder case - two young men murder a third and put his body in a trunk, minutes before hosting a dinner party, and they use the trunk as their table to serve the guests. Among these guests are the parents of the murdered boy, and a canny old teacher of theirs (played by Jimmy Stewart) who proves to be a threat. The gimmick is that the film seems to be shot in a single, fluid take; it's as though the audience isn't allowed to look away from this grotesque happening. Hitchcock used various tricks to disguise reel changes and so on.
Rope does have many weaknesses. The script is very good but not quite dynamic enough, considering that the movie is really all script, moving from one dialogue to another, mostly in a single room. Also, Jimmy Stewart's final monologue is a disaster far surpassing the idiot psychoanalyst's expostion in Psycho, making you want to slap him and destroying most of the film's emotional impact. Still, I can't give it less than four stars, just because it's such a unique and conceptually brilliant film. Just be warned that it should be appreciated on its own terms.
9 The Dawn of a New Genre: Suspense
Suspense is a genre that today's many films are categorized into. Different than horror, the audience looks for elongated moments of tension, created by increased curiosity. But this whole genre should be tributed to Alfred Hitchcock, who told us that one's nerves could be tested to unconventional limits without the showing of blood-sucking vampires, or slice-and-dicing killers.
The whole movie, but the whole of it, is acted in a single room: a living room. That may seem odd at first. However, the acting is done so well, that you won't be thinking of that detail as the suspense climbs on. The film is about two young gentlemen, who have a hard time hiding their victim in a closed chest at the time when they have guests at home. The feeling of guilt, as in all Hitchcock movies, will cause our main characters to feel uncomfortable and at stress, which will cause tension among the other characters and them.
'Rope' may not have many modern techniques that we are used to nowadays; but it definitely provides the suspense elements, that contemporary suspense films are based onto. I recommend this movie to every suspense-lover, but especially to those who are aiming to get sophisticated about where the roots of suspense came from.
10 Measure your words carefully. They may be taken seriously
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Format: Color
Studio: Universal Studios
Video Release Date: May 23, 1995
Cast:
James Stewart ... Rupert Cadell
John Dall ... Brandon Shaw
Farley Granger ... Phillip Morgan
Cedric Hardwicke ... Mr. Kentley
Constance Collier ... Mrs. Atwater
Douglas Dick ... Kenneth Lawrence
Edith Evanson ... Mrs. Wilson
Dick Hogan ... David Kentley
Joan Chandler ... Janet Walker
Alfred Hitchcock ... Man walking in street after opening credits
The Three Suns ... Group cast appearance (radio sequence)
Two young men decide to kill a friend for kicks. ala Leopold and Loeb, because one of them, Brandon Shaw (John Dall) thinks he is a superior human being, and above the rules, and the victim is inferior and therefore fair game. He quotes a former professor, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) who has verbalized such a proposition in class.
They do, indeed, strangle the other young man, David Kentley (Dick Hogan), place his body in a trunk, and then throw a party to which they invite Bentley's parents, his girl friend, Prof. Cadell and others, and serve food and drinks from the trunk in which the body lies. Cadell, a bright man, realizes that something funny is going on and investigates.
This is an entertaining movie. Hitchcock. the director, admitted that he made the film on a lark, and that it was not a serious endeavor, but given his genius it came out very well anyway. It rates 4 stars with me, at least.
Joseph (Joe) Pierre
author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books
11 "I Hope You Like What You See!" -- (You Will, Via This DVD!)
"Rope" debuted in theaters in August of 1948, and represented the first movie shot in COLOR by Director Alfred Hitchcock.
James Stewart, Farley Granger, and John Dall are the stars here, with Stewart (as always) giving a flawless, effortless-looking performance. I really liked all the character portrayals in this film. Murderers Granger and Dall exhibit just the right mix of "Will we get caught?" angst and the cockiness and sheer gall of those that murder simply for the sport of it.
Although not one of the "higher profile" Alfred Hitchcock entries, I think "Rope" is, in fact, one of his better films. It's certainly unique, style-wise, being filmed in ten-minute, continuous takes, giving it a "seamless" uninterrupted look.
There has been much talk about the supposed "homosexual overtones" between the two murderers in "Rope". Now while I know this to be the director's intention, if I hadn't read about it after seeing the movie, I would never have thought those two male characters were supposed to be homosexual. In my view, *nothing* that is said or done in the film particularly points to this conclusion. I suppose it's designed to be there, but "just beneath the surface". But, I looked at the two killers as merely being close friends. I don't really know why the sexual orientation subject even has to enter into it. And, really, it *doesn't*.
"Rope" is unique in another fashion as well -- Hitchcock's "cameo". Unique because we get not one, but TWO, "Hitch" cameos in this picture. Right after the opening credits, we see Alfred walking on the sidewalk below. With cameo appearance #2 (which was originally intended to be his lone cameo) coming 55 minutes into the fairly-short 80-minute film. This second cameo is not of Hitchcock "in the flesh". Instead, the director inserted the image of a flashing neon sign outside one of the windows of the apartment. This sign depicts the famous Hitchcock "profile". A very inventive cameo indeed (rivaling his "newspaper" appearance in "Lifeboat" for the most creative, IMO).
As with a much-later Hitchcock picture, "The Birds", "Rope" has no music score to aid the story and move it along (save the opening theme music and the piano-playing of Farley Granger's character). An entire movie void of music is something that I don't imagine too many directors could pull off. But Hitchcock, in "Rope" and "The Birds" (which was fifteen years later), did it quite successfully.
This Universal single-disc DVD offers up a fine-looking and very clear Full Frame picture (1.33:1 aspect ratio). Colors do look a tad dated, though. But, overall, "Rope" looks excellent here! The soundtrack on the disc is in Mono (Dolby Digital 2.0).
The disc's Menu system is simplistic and easy to use (which is OK by me). When the Main Menu is on screen, the theme from Hitch's TV series, "Alfred Hitchcock Presents", plays. This is nice, but I wonder why they didn't use the "Rope" opening theme music for the Menu?
Although not officially labelled as one of Universal's "Collector's Editions", this "Rope" DVD could very well have been so designated. This disc has very nearly as many Special Features as the other Hitchcock "Collector's" packages. Here's a gander at the "Rope" bonus supplements .................
>> A 32-minute documentary, "Rope Unleashed", covering the making of this motion picture. Included here is an interview with actor/writer Hume Cronyn, who collaborated on the "Rope" screenplay. Sadly, not too very long after filming the interview for this DVD, Mr. Cronyn passed away, in June 2003. Many backstage pictures are mixed in with the interview segments, including some eye-opening pics of the color camera equipment of the era. Color cameras during those days were more than "bulky" -- those babies were humongous! And via some still photos we can see just how cumbersome those cameras were, circa 1948.
>> The Original Theatrical Trailer for "Rope". -- I absolutely love this unique trailer. It really (in a way) serves as a "deleted scene" from the movie. And shows us the film's murder victim ("David Kentley") before he falls prey to his killers' rope. The trailer has David (played by Dick Hogan) and his fiancee, Janet (Joan Chandler), sitting on a park bench, talking about their upcoming engagement. It's just a short scene, but sets up some of the plot points very nicely in just a few seconds. After David kisses his betrothed and leaves the park, this becomes more of a "conventional" trailer, with star Jimmy Stewart appearing on camera to narrate. Video quality for this color trailer is a bit splotchy and blurry in places, but still certainly in watchable condition. I think the introduction of the murder victim in this "added" scene was a very clever idea by the filmmakers. Trailer length = 2:25.
>> A very nice Photo Gallery (which has many behind-the-camera images).
>> Some text screens with film notes and cast bios. (There's a kind of funny little mistake in the DVD's bio of John Dall. Dall's character is referred to as "Shaw Brandon" on the text screen, instead of the correct name, "Brandon Shaw".)
Alfred Hitchcock directed more than 50 films -- with "Rope", his first venture into the world of "Technicolor", resting among my personal "Top 10 Hitch Flicks". This Universal Home Video DVD comes recommended by this Hitchcock enthusiast.
12 Tense and Unusual HItchcock Classic
Brandon (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger) are two rich, educated young men who think very highly of themselves indeed. At college, they were taught by Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) who, having read a little too much Nietzsche, explained to them there that, for truly superior people, murder need be no crime. They have taken this ugly lesson just a little too much to heart and so, just for fun, they kill their friend David. Then, his body hidden in a chest, they hold a dinner party for his parents, his girlfriend, the girlfriend's ex-boyfriend and Cadell himself. David is invited too, but of course, he doesn't show up. But Philip, especially, is decidedly nervous and, as the evening progresses, Cadell starts to smell a rat...
Technically, this is one of Hitchcock's most consciously experimental pieces of film. There is no music at all, except over the credits and in a couple of scenes where Philip plays the piano. And it is made to at least appear to have been shot in a single very long take. In fact it is not and there are a few cuts that maintain an appearance of seamlessness by taking place as the shot passes across some dark surface like the back of a jacket. This contributes nicely to the tension. It does has a certain awkward consequence however in that the action is thereby set in real time and it takes some suspension of disbelief to accept that a society dinner party might last about 45 minutes from start to finish. (It also means that, whether you think this is a movie worth buying or just one to rent, it would be particularly criminal to watch it on TV with commercial interruptions.) Another nice technical touch exploits the location of Brandon and Philip's apartment high in New York and close to some neon signage. For much of the film it is daytime outside but in the scenes towards the end as a climax approaches, a surreal, nightmarish atmosphere is created by the slow by constant modulations of colouring of the light that result.
This is Hitchcock's first movie collaboration with James Stewart who does an excellent job playing a smart intellectual type who gets a nasty shock when he finds two of his students putting into action the clever sounding but disgusting ideas he thought he was so smart in expounding. It's a rather nice study in the perils of a shallow predeliction for novel, supposedly "advanced", moral thinking. (Brandon and Philip, arrogant patricians killing for fun, will have recalled to an American audience of the time the famous `20s case of Leopold and Loeb.) The movie is a interesting moral fable and also a nice, if slightly stagy thriller. It's not one of Hitchcock's greats but it's certainly no dud. There are no high-drama moments of nailbiting suspense but instead a constant uncomfortable tension as social events unfold in an apartment where only two of the participants know there is a fresh corpse in the cupboard just under all those fancy dinner goodies and their nerves are starting to fray...
13 A Play? A Movie? Doesn't Matter, it's Hitchcock!
Oh this one's another good one. The only thing that makes a Hitchcock story better is when Jimmy Steward stars in it!
The setting for this is an apartment. This movie is also a play. Unlike most Hitchcock movies, you won't be taken to the far corners of the globe. You stay right there in the apartment. And for VERY good reason.... You, the audience, must watch that nothing changes in the apartment and yet the murder slowly un-ravels....
The one-room setting does kind of make the movie itself feel like a play. I'm not a big fan of plays and I suppose it's because of the limited scenery possible for a play versus a movie or novel. And yet, this works for me very well. I suppose it's because I know about that rope... and just wait until you know too!
14 A unique showcase for Jimmy Stewart
The merits of Hitchcock's experimental film ROPE have been endlessly debated. (See below!)
What I find fascinating about this film is what it reveals about the skill of the actors, especially Jimmy Stewart. In an ordinary film, a performance is as much the creation of the director and editor as it is the actor. The choice of takes and angles, the pace of the cutting, etc. all work to enhance or subdue an actor's work. In ROPE, with its continuous 10 minute shots, the actors' work is plainly revealed. As in a live play, they are on their own to maintain the pace and the intensity of the drama.
Hitchcock's cast doesn't ever let the energy flag. Farley Grainger and John Dall tear right into the opening, visibly sweating their way through the early murder scene. The drama shifts tone with the introduction of each new actor, but it is not until Jimmy Stewart enters that the movie snaps into place. Where the others are intense and theatrical, Stewart is comfortable and deceptively easy-going. Watch how skillfully he alters the tension and shifts the mood with his control of movement and voice. Even when he is on the edge of the scene his reactions give the drama focus. This is one of Stewart's most underrated performances. He enters this stagy drama, takes a deep breath, and makes it fascinating and fun to watch.
This is still Hitchcock, of course. Note the pacing of the camera, the elegant set and moody lighting, and the cleverly suspenseful use of music. But ROPE I think is most interesting for this unique opportunity to study Jimmy Stewart's skill as an actor.
Watch it again and see what you think!
15 3 1/2 stars for film inspired by Leopold and Loeb case
The first film that Hitchcock released through his Transatlantic Pictures company, Rope is an underappreciate minor classic. It's flawed to be sure but this unusual experiment was shot in long takes an unusual approach for Hitchcock. The story was inspired by the Leopold and Loeb murder case and their obsession with the superman theories of Nietzsche.
Philip (Farley Granger)and Brandon (John Dall)have committed the murder of an old classmate for the thrill of it. They invite over mutual friends, the father and mother of the victim and their old prep school master Rupert (Jimmy Stewart)who first introduced them to Nietzche's theories. They drape a table cloth over the trunk where the dead body rests.
Written by Arthur Laurents and Hume Cronyn from the play Rope's End by Patrick Hamilton, Rope allows Hitchcock to indulge in a number of unusual cinematic experiments. It was Hitchcock's first movie to be shot in color and the entire 80 minute film is shot on one set with the skyline gradually changing. If Hitchcock had gotten his ideal cast the film might have been quite different; originally Hitchcock wanted Carey Grant for the role Stewart player and Montgomery Clift as Brandon.
The transfer is good although there is some edge enhancement and some analog and compression artifacts (although they aren't a huge problem). The vivid 3 strip Technicolor process comes to life on this DVD. The colors are pretty close to the version I saw screened. I should note, though, that I originally saw Rope at the UCLA Theater Arts Archive in black and white (a color copy wasn't available) on a Movieola and it was a nitrate print so I'm comparing it to versions that were released much later than the original.
While Rope isn't a perfect Hitchcock excursion, it's an enjoyable and admirable one that features a number of interesting visuals, strong performances and an interesting thought provoking story. The extras on this edition are quite nice as well including a feaurette entitled Rope Unleased, production photos and notes. Sadly, no extensive outtakes exist for Rope and everything that was written was, for the most part, shot.
16 A witty elegant essay on murder
Some may argue there is nothing witty about murder, which you see in this film in the first few minutes committed by two elegantly dressed and well groomed handsome men on another elegantly dressed and handsome man in a well appointed apartment with a magnificent view of the city. Moreover, these two dandies just have to SEE if they can commit the perfect murder. In some ways the film is not just a meditation on good and evil, and at heart, the ethics of killing another human being, but also considers the recreation activities of those who have "everything". When one has every material advantage, the biggest house, the most exprensive car, a lover, drugs (presumably) what now for fun? And what if you are among the most intelligent and well educated individual on earth, doesn't that make you better than others and give you the right to make decisions over others lives? Especially the stupid, the unattractive, the lazy, the disabled - from here isn't it a small step to those of a different race, different culture? ROPE may be an allegory too for all those suited Foreign Affairs experts in their suits making recommendations about which country to bomb next. Then again it may just be another elegant transformation of a theatre piece to titillate the jaded appetite of those satiated by too much drawing room comedy. Richly photographed in colour, with outstanding actors. Worth owning.
17 Another Murder for Hitchcock
If, deception, and suspense intrigues you, then Alfred Hitchcock's film Rope is your movie. Its about two young men who murder there prep school mate. They try to show there intelligence and superiority by inviting David's closest friends and family over for a party. The guests are unaware that David's dead body is right under their nose.
This film is one of the most boring films I have ever watched. The plot takes place in a lavish penthouse where two school mates, Brandon (Dall) and Phillip (granger) who plan out this murder, strangling their classmate David with a rope. Brandon feels there superior to David and that murder is an art when done right. Through out the film they invite David's close family over, fooling them on David's where about, so they think. Rupert (Stewart) who inspired the two men to do this, tries piecing together the missing David. This film being classified as a thriller is a joke. Britney Spears film Crossroads was as much as a thriller as Rope. Sense the viewers already know who killed who; they have to sit through eighty minutes of hell, knowing they're going to get caught.
The acting in this film was mediocre. John Dall (Brandon) did a good job on portraying an arrogant young man on top of the world. He was so cocky with his sly remarks about David, to the others at the party, that I hoped he got caught. Farley Granger (Phillip) also did a good job portraying a weak minded person who gets pushed around by his friends. Another actor who did an above average job on his character was James Stewart (Rupert). He was the enlightening teacher who thinks his views have meaning and importance. As for the rest of the cast, I thought there performances were appalling. Constance Collier (Mrs. Atwater) was horrible. She looked like she was trying to hard, and I think a five year-old could have acted better then her. Joan Chandler (Janet) had her weaker points. Her character seemed like an air head, and she didn't fit the part right.
After seeing other films Alfred Hitchcock films, like Psycho and The Birds, this film is a toss up with The Birds as one of the worst films I have watched. I would rather been put through the Chinese torches then sit through it, let alone watch the entire thing. An aspect of the film that mad e it seem boring and pulled along was that there was only one setting for the entire film. This made it hard to pay attention and made the film seem quite dull. Another negative attribute was that the film did not feel like a thriller because there was no action since the entire film was in one confined area.
Throughout Hitchcock's film career, he has put together many masterpieces and classic film that people look back on still to this day. He is full of surprises in his films, bring never before seen work to his film era; well Rope should have never been seen. This film drags on for eighty minutes, pulling horrible acting and camera work along with it. I would chop my two thumbs off, rather then use energy to point them down. Unless film viewers are looking for something to fall asleep to, I strongly suggest not watching the film Rope!
18 Rope Not So Hot
Rope Not So Hot
Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 movie, "Rope," lacks anything to make it appealing. After watching this mind-numbing film, I would have to say its not a movie anyone would want to fritter $6 to go see at the theatre. This dull movie is set in an apartment complex. In this film, the main characters are Brandon, Phillip, David, and Rupert. Hitchcock's main idea in this motion picture was to have Brandon and Phillip attempt a planned out stunt murder on one of their close friends just for the thrill of it. There wasn't an exact reason why they committed the murder on David but they just wanted to prove to themselves how nicely they planned out the murder and how everything worked out so smoothly as planned, showing their intellectual superiority. After the murder, Brandon and Phillip decide to celebrate their success by having a party in their apartment. They invite guests to their party as though they think they haven't got in enough trouble as it is.
The setting in this film takes place in an apartment. Throughout the whole movie, the setting does not change at all. It is boring and the only place that the characters go is from one room to another in the apartment. There isn't much to look forward to, and the audience feels confined.
The plot in this film wasn't anything too special. The whole murder act could have been unmistakably performed and settled without all the other things that happen throughout the film. To the viewers, many may think of Brandon and Phillip's murder as being stupid. Who would honestly set up a party after their murder to celebrate what they have done? If that isn't bad enough, why would anyone keep the dead body in the apartment and not get rid of it? Not only did they keep it in the chest in the apartment, they even put David's body in the chest and use the chest as the serving table.
The after-murder party was positively a good way to assist Hitchcock's film hold it's high suspense. Brandon's decision to hide David's body into a chest increases the movie's suspense. Not only did he place the dead body in the chest, he uses the chest as a serving table for food during the party. Besides that, the film really gets going when the maid decides to clean up after the party is over. She clears off the food on the chest and is about to store some books back into the chest, where they belong. Brandon stops her from opening it and grabs the books away from her. As the party eventually ends everyone grabs their coats and hats. Rupert is handed David's hat by mistake and his initials are inside of it. Throughout the entire party everyone was wondering where David could be, and with Rupert finding the hat, it really kept the suspense building at this point of the movie.
As for the acting in this film, the characters did a fine job portraying their characters. John Dall, who played as Brandon, did a good job as the lead and chief of the murder. He tries to keep Phillip from ruining their perfect murder. Phillip is so frightened and nervous that he eventually spills the beans. Rupert little by little comes suspicious and was wonders what could ever happen to David. Joan Chandler as Janet played a good part in the film also. She was one of the few that were more worried about David's disappearance. Her sadness towards David's absence causes many of the guests at the party to be more concerned and cautious.
Overall I think this movie is one of Hitchcock's worst. The setting is boring and does not seem to move onto anywhere. The plot is okay when it comes to the perfect murder gone wrong, however the suspense throughout the movie gets better as the movie progresses. The characters played a good role as whom they were which helped out the film. This movie would be worth going to if you have nothing else to do and if you want to waste time. The setting and the whole plot line weren't too great. It was definitely not one of Hitchcock's classics.
19 Rope Not So Hot
Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 movie, "Rope," lacks anything to make it appealing. After watching this mind-numbing film, I would have to say its not a movie anyone would want to fritter $6 to go see at the theatre. This dull movie is set in an apartment complex. In this film, the main characters are Brandon, Phillip, David, and Rupert. Hitchcock's main idea in this motion picture was to have Brandon and Phillip attempt a planned out stunt murder on one of their close friends just for the thrill of it. There wasn't an exact reason why they committed the murder on David but they just wanted to prove to themselves how nicely they planned out the murder and how everything worked out so smoothly as planned, showing their intellectual superiority. After the murder, Brandon and Phillip decide to celebrate their success by having a party in their apartment. They invite guests to their party as though they think they haven't got in enough trouble as it is.
The setting in this film takes place in an apartment. Throughout the whole movie, the setting does not change at all. It is boring and the only place that the characters go is from one room to another in the apartment. There isn't much to look forward to, and the audience feels confined.
The plot in this film wasn't anything too special. The whole murder act could have been unmistakably performed and settled without all the other things that happen throughout the film. To the viewers, many may think of Brandon and Phillip's murder as being stupid. Who would honestly set up a party after their murder to celebrate what they have done? If that isn't bad enough, why would anyone keep the dead body in the apartment and not get rid of it? Not only did they keep it in the chest in the apartment, they even put David's body in the chest and use the chest as the serving table.
The after-murder party was positively a good way to assist Hitchcock's film hold it's high suspense. Brandon's decision to hide David's body into a chest increases the movie's suspense. Not only did he place the dead body in the chest, he uses the chest as a serving table for food during the party. Besides that, the film really gets going when the maid decides to clean up after the party is over. She clears off the food on the chest and is about to store some books back into the chest, where they belong. Brandon stops her from opening it and grabs the books away from her. As the party eventually ends everyone grabs their coats and hats. Rupert is handed David's hat by mistake and his initials are inside of it. Throughout the entire party everyone was wondering where David could be, and with Rupert finding the hat, it really kept the suspense building at this point of the movie.
As for the acting in this film, the characters did a fine job portraying their characters. John Dall, who played as Brandon, did a good job as the lead and chief of the murder. He tries to keep Phillip from ruining their perfect murder. Phillip is so frightened and nervous that he eventually spills the beans. Rupert little by little comes suspicious and was wonders what could ever happen to David. Joan Chandler as Janet played a good part in the film also. She was one of the few that were more worried about David's disappearance. Her sadness towards David's absence causes many of the guests at the party to be more concerned and cautious.
Overall I think this movie is one of Hitchcock's worst. The setting is boring and does not seem to move onto anywhere. The plot is okay when it comes to the perfect murder gone wrong, however the suspense throughout the movie gets better as the movie progresses. The characters played a good role as whom they were which helped out the film. This movie would be worth going to if you have nothing else to do and if you want to waste time. The setting and the whole plot line weren't too great. It was definitely not one of Hitchcock's classics.
20 Tying the Knot
Alfred Hitchcock's Rope was not your typical thriller. Brandon and Philip, played by John Dall and Farley Granger, committed the murder of a colleague, David in the opening scenes of the film. From that point on, they battled throughout the scenes with their emotions stemming from their tragic acts. Brandon's demeanor showed how proud he was of the perfect murder they had committed. It seemed as if the only reason for committing the crime was strictly out of the thrill of getting away with it. Brandon and Philip appeared to have very complex minds behind their reasoning for this murder which was simply out of their feeling of superiority to David. After completing this insane experiment Brandon and Philip threw a small party with David's family and close friends as guests. Not only that, but Brandon insisted on serving dinner from the chest where David's deceased body lay. This film shows some very "twisted" behavior but portrays it very well.
Rope would have been better developed as a play because of the single setting throughout the whole film. However, the characters developed their personalities well. Brandon, the confident one, went as far as telling a story of strangling a chicken, a story which hit too close to home. Upon hearing the story, Philip became even more nervous - a state which grew over the rest of the evening. At one point his agitation caused him to go as far as breaking a martini glass. The blood on his hand only attracted more attention to him because of his guilty conscience. Throughout the whole film, Philip was very sure they would be caught, especially when Rupert, one of the guests at the party, (played by James Stewart) seemed to be catching on to something strange taking place. Rupert kept quizzing Philip concerning the relationship of David and Janet, his fiancŽ, subtly trying to get information on David's whereabouts. As the night went on, Rupert began to thread together the behavior of his hosts into a horrific meaning. Philip kept pouring down the drinks to attempt to calm his nerves.
I thought the camera's point of view was strange for a film. It was as if it was someone in the audience of a play or just an observer at the party, which took place in the living room at Brandon and Philip's apartment. I also picked up on the ten minute reel changes. After every ten minute segment, Hitchcock focused in on a dark spot of that particular scene; sometimes the back of an actor's shirt or on a book. Showing a dark picture every ten minutes got somewhat tedious and annoying, it also came at some very awkward times. Despite all of these things there was a great deal of suspense throughout the film. This was a nice surprise especially considering the murder had already taken place.
All in all the actors portrayed their characters very well. From the murderers; Brandon and Philip, to the worried relatives of David, each character's emotions were well developed. Perhaps it was a mistake to have Rupert as a guest at the party; he seemed to be the only guest that was catching on. He put together the significance of the chicken story; he noticed the abnormal behavior of Philip and was very curious as to why dinner was served from the chest. Either way, with or without Rupert in attendance, Brandon and Philip were willing to take the risk.
Although I believe this thriller would have been better as a stage play, the suspense keeps the audience interested. It is not until the dinner party was over that the verdict came out. Throughout the entire film, questions arose from all angles including from Rupert, Mrs. Wilson, David's father and the audience: `Where is David? Will Brandon and Philip complete the crime or will Rupert tie the knot?' To find the answers to these and other intriguing mysteries, enjoy Hitchcock's classic thriller of the "perfect crime".
21 Hitchcock Ties a Great Thriller
Alfred Hitchcock comes through with a great piece of work in his first ever color-film. "Rope" is a movie about two men, Brandon and Philip, who murder classmate David Kentley, whom they deem intellectually inferior. They then proceed to throw a party in their apartment with David hidden in a chest of which they serve dinner off. Brandon Shaw (John Dall) is very confident in his plan and seems to be poised to have everything go perfectly. His partner Philip Morgan (Farley Granger) does an astonishing job acting as the nervous suspect who thinks that every coincidental incident means that their plan is falling apart.
Hitchcock relates this film to human nature knowing that everyone loves to get away with something. This part of the suspense comes from our ability to be an accomplice to murder, without suffering the consequences. Everyone knows that murder is wrong, but Mr. Hitchcock directs the film in a way that will leave you wanting Brandon and Philip to get away with the murder. You will find yourself at the edge of your seat wondering if they can pull off this seemingly impossible task.
James Stewart does an excellent job playing the role of a retired schoolteacher (Rupert Cadell) who acts more like a detective than a teacher. Rupert is the character who originally taught Brandon and Philip the theory of moral and intellectual superiority.
However, he did not expect them to take it as anything more than a joke or a conversation. During the party, everybody begins to concern themselves with the well-being of David (the corpse). As the film goes on, the suspense builds up.
Alfred Hitchcock also uses the "one shot" idea so it gives the impression of real-time. This was done very well and was a strong point in the movie. You will not even notice the different cuts unless you pay very close attention in detail. The music was diegetic, as Brandon playing the piano was the only part of the movie that involved music at all. As Rupert begins to question him, Brandon plays faster as his paranoia grows. This film is loaded with excitement and you will find yourself anxiously anticipating what will happen next throughout the entire movie.
Some might not like this film because it is done all in one scene, but I think that this adds to the movie as you can see everything in the room at all times. This aspect of the movie is very intriguing, and I am surprised that this is not done more often. Everything in the movie was happening in the apartment. There is never a time when you will want to know what is happening elsewhere. This allows you to know that nothing is happening behind your back. I would recommend this movie to anyone who has not watched it before. Everyone should experience watching a film composed like this one.
22 More Like Hang Me By a Rope
As I sat and watched two men murder one of their friends for fun at the opening scene of the movie I begin to wonder why I am watching this. I remember that it is made by Alfred Hitchcock and know that it should be good because of this. Yet the movie "Rope," disappointed me for many reasons.
Growing up in a generation of excellent technology I don't have much tolerance for anything below par. Considering that this movie was made in 1948 it is an entirely different way of making films. The film used to produce this movie was shot in ten minute segments. In order for it to appear like it was shot as one, they had to go to a black scene to disguise the splice. This annoyed me because Hitchcock's way of doing this was to zoom in to a mans jacket or a dark table. It was an awkward shot and was very noticeable. Hitchcock also decided to film the entire movie in one apartment. The setting was very bland and I can't stand to watch one small scene for an entire movie.
The plot of the movie also was lacking in the innovative sense. Hitchcock began the movie with a murder and there was pretty much nothing left to make me want to watch it. They killed a friend just to see if they could get away from it. The moral aspect was sickening. The thought that any one is so much better than someone one else, which gives them the right to kill them, is disgusting. They had a party and danced around the idea the entire night. You knew they were going to get caught and there was no other point to the movie. They just dragged on a 5 minute story for 80 minutes.
The characters were uneventful and boring to watch. Brandon, one of the killers, was the host of the party and came up with the idea. He walked around giving people hints, like he yearned to get caught. His accomplice, Philip, was a nervous wreck the whole night. He was so anxious that it got really old to watch him or even listen to him freak out. The aunt of the killed man -one of the party guests-sat there laughing at everything. Hitchcock had many characters that just sat there and did nothing. They didn't add to the story line. They just made it more unbearable to watch.
Hitchcock tried to add suspense and drama by adding little details that were so blatantly obvious that you knew nothing would actually happen. While Brandon's maid was cleaning up after dinner, she began to lift the lid of the trunk that the victim's dead body was in yet, was quickly stopped by Brandon. This was added for the shock factor but unfortunately didn't work what so ever. Everyone knew that no one would see it and it wouldn't be opened in the long run.
While some people might find it entertaining to watch a dinner party with a lack of plot and horrifying morals for 80 minutes, it definitely doesn't match my view of a thriller. Generally I would say that this is one of the most unpleasant movies I've had to sit through. I understand that Hitchcock's known for classic movies but obviously missed on this one.
23 Hitchcock Fails to Prevail
A skyscraper view from an apartment window looking over beautiful New York City is an upright start to a not so worthy movie. Under Alfred Hitchcock's directing, Rope is an example of a dull and rather uninteresting-ho-hum style of filmmaking. The film begins with a great setting and would catch any viewers' attention. However these thoughts change rapidly when the movie suddenly hits a wall. In moving to the interior of a single apartment, the setting soon becomes extremely dull and boring. The entire film moves from one room to another, which becomes notably repetitive. This let-down introduction to the film would only get worse as this terrible movie progresses.
Rope does have a plot that isn't too bad. The movie revolves around a murder of a man by the name of David Kentley, played by Dick Hogan. Brandon, played by Josh Dall and Phillip, played by Farley Granger are the killers to this bizarre style of murder. Believe it or not, the two murderers throw a party and invite the descendents of the victim to help celebrate their accomplishment. The suspense builds up when guests at the party begin to talk about murder and how it sometimes is a privilege to commit such a crime. The invited party-goers begin to ask questions as to why dinner is being served on the book chest, where the dead body lay inside, instead of the dinner table. Rupert Cadell, played by James Stewart seems to be on to something and begins to give a scare to the two murderers. The suspense only gets more superior when people walk suspiciously near the chest. The suspense and plot aspects of the movie were well done. Hitchcock's use of camera work would also be another crucial asset in an attempt to make Rope a "classic" thriller.
Acting also played a faultfinding role in this film. The acting was flat out horrendous and extremely bland. The actors' try too hard to put on a good show in a poorly set up film. My ears were in distress when I heard the voices of some of the guests. Mrs. Atwater's voice was unbelievably horrid. I could hardly listen to what she was going to say next. Dall, Granger, and Stewart did an okay job, but improvement is definitely needed. Expressing their feelings and emotions in a manner that is not so tense and loosening up a bit would make the film more realistic and fun to watch.
If you enjoy listening to music or soundtracks in a film I recommend not watching this one. There is only one scene where music was being played and it was completely off beat with what was occurring. Not having a soundtrack added to the profound dullness of Alfred Hitchcock's disgracing film.
The camera work engulfed a sense of uniqueness and captured my attention. It was as though there were an imaginary person following the actors and catching the subtle actions that otherwise would not be seen. Hitchcock's unique style of switching scenes was greatly productive. He used ten-minute film reels as the filmmaking process. At the end of each reel the camera would focus on a dark object such as the back of a coat on one of the actors. The new reel would begin and the whole process would be repeated. The camera appeared to be on a rotary crane as it followed the actors throughout the apartment. This is what gave the role of the imaginary person. The camera work was very similar to Alfred Hitchcock's films Psycho and The Birds, which also had extraordinary camera functions and fantastic angles.
In conclusion, I believe that viewing this film would simply be a waste of time and should not be seen unless you are an absolute diehard Hitchcock fan. Rope would be at the bottom of the list when comparing it to Psycho and The Birds. Although some criteria were similar in these films, Rope seemed to be cut a little short in Hitchcock's efforts to prevail in filmmaking. Some segments of the movie kept me on my toes and at the edge of my chair as suspense began to amass, but other parts nearly put me to sleep. Rope's camera work was exceptional, however, Hitchcock's decision to not use a soundtrack is unquestionably taking away from a movie that had potential. It appears this time that the rope was tied slightly too tight around Hitchcock's neck when making decisions on the filmmaking process.
24 "Rope" Review
Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" in my mind was a first-class picture. For the time the movie was made it was concurrent. The movie flows well and has good transitions. It appears that it was shot in a single take. The opening part of the movie shows a scene of two men, Brandon and Philip, strangling the life out of their friend David. The reason that Brandon and Philip felt that the murder was alright was because of the philosophy from one of their past teachers, Rupert. Rupert stated that people who are of an intellectually inferior race should be murdered. Although believing in this statement Rupert himself would never act on it. After the murder, the killers hide the body of the dead man in a wooden trunk, in their house. Not satisfied with just the murder Brandon and Philip invited the parents, fiancŽe, and friends of the man they murdered over for a dinner party.
"Rope" is able to capture the suspense of the audience. While watching the movie you are unable to really predict what was going to happen next. Just when you think Brandon and Philip could not prove themselves to be anymore ludicrous, they prove you wrong. It seems as though they loved to put themselves into potentially bad situations. For example, they decide to serve dinner on the wooden coffin in which the dead body of there friend David lay. The film keeps you watching because you couldn't imagine what was going to happen next.
I felt that the actors in the movie portrayed their characters well. John Dall for example playing, Brandon, who seemed to run the whole show and his only goal, was to achieve superior status. Throughout the movie he controlled the actions of his friend Philip. He truly felt in his mind that if he thought someone one was intellectually inferior to them he could kill them. After committing the murder Brandon felt that he was a better person because of it. John Dall seemed that he new exactly who he was supposed to portray and did it splendidly so. Farley Granger playing, Philip, was a character that seemed to not know much of who he was as a person. He was a person that was easy to boss around and persuade to do things that you wanted him to. When all of the action is going on he begins to feel remorse and doesn't know how to handle himself. Farley Granger plays his timid, easily persuadable character marvelously.
I didn't like how in the movie the whole concept of "superior" and "inferior" was not explained. That actors talked about that if they felt someone was inferior to them it was alright to kill them. Who is one to decide that someone is inferior? What were the basis' for them deciding that someone was inferior? I felt that they needed more concrete reasons to support there actions. The point seems to be that it is such an opinion that it can not be explained or defended.
The ending of the film was not impressing by any standards. It was a typical ending to a suspense thriller. It didn't really fit the twists of the rest of the film. For example, little to no films kills off one of the main characters in the first scene of the movie. I was expecting more of a controversial ending, for example, Brandon and Philip receiving full appraisal from their philosopher Rupert
The overall impression of the film was outstanding. I really enjoyed the story that the film told. It kept me on the edge of my seat and I was excited to see what was going to happen next. I would recommend to anyone to watch the film. It will have an impact on you after you watch it. It will really make you think if there are people in society that portray the main characters.
25 The Question Of Murder
Review of "Rope"
In this spine-tingling thriller by Alfred Hitchcock we start off with a murder by two men, Phillip and Brandon who are played by Farley Granger and John Dall. They are taking part in this action just for the experience of killing. Now that the crime of the century has just happened and instead of disposing of the body the two killers throw a party to celebrate their first kill. They are insane with the idea that they are much wiser and smarter than any normal everyday murderers, so they decide to invite the victim's family, friends and fiancŽ. Then they decide to go further and invite their philosophical mentor, Mr. Cadell to the party.
These little tricks prove to be too much to deal with for Phillip, who has had a hard time with his newly acquired profession and wants the whole thing to be over. His dueling accomplice doesn't feel the same way and does more and more to dangle their work in front of everyone. The only one who starts to tune in on Brandon's forwardness is Mr.Cadell the old schoolmaster, played by Jimmy Stewart. He begins to suspect something is wrong and try's to get to the bottom of things. This is where I will leave you, so I won't spoil the ending.
I myself would recommend this movie because of its story line which keeps you on your toes and because of the good acting by Jimmy Stewart, John Dall, and Farley Granger. The tech crew also does some very tricky camera work. This movie does have some prominent names for most of the roles which is one of Hitchcock gifts at casting.
In this movie, Hitchcock does his takes in ten minute intervals, which not only tests the actor's ability to make the shots in real time but also involves moving the cameras and set pieces to follow along with the party. He does a marvelous job incorporating his shots to two rooms, with the main focus on the little conversation between each actor.
Hitchcock also brings us to a suspenseful climax at the end. He spends the entire movie bring us to the edge and almost feeling a little protective of the killers. The actors do this all too well. Both of the men who play Brandon and Phillip have you believe that their story is their reason death can and should be committed by superior beings.
The one person who starts to figure out these horrors is Mr. Cadell, he plays their game. He is surprised at the end when he finds that his own words have just come back and slapped him in the face. Stewart is at his best in this film. He not only shows a condescending man but also a crusader for the truth.
This movie should be scene by all; it fits the definition of a moral thriller to a tee. Even though they act out moral bending events in this film it is still a nail biting experience.
26 Hitchcock Strangles Himself With His Own Rope
Hitchcock Strangles Himself With His Own Rope
When I first saw the names Alfred Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart appear across the screen, I couldn't help but wonder what great classic I was about to enjoy. "Rope," the film I was about to see, was supposed to be a thriller for the time it was made. After seeing it, I find calling it a thriller is absurd.
In the opening scene of "Rope," Brandon and Philip, two former classmates, kill fellow classmate, David, by strangling him with a rope. They have no obvious motive for killing him, other than they feel they are superior to him and are curious to see how it feels to commit murder. Unlike other thrillers, the murder happens in broad daylight and lacks suspense. This film is nothing like what I consider a thriller, such as "Scream" or "I Know What You Did Last Summer." In these movies the soon to be victim runs from their killer for minutes only to end up being surprised and then stabbed, shot or choked to death. There was not a huge fight or chase nor were there loud screams or bloody images common to memorable thrillers.
After killing David, the two murderers decide to put him in a chest while they have a party to celebrate their act. The two invite everyone close to David, including his parents and fiancŽ, as well as their old teacher, Rupert. Brandon decides to serve dinner from atop the chest and have the party all around David's dead body. The absence of drama becomes more evident as the party continues. The attempt of the side plots between David's fiancŽ and David's friend, Kenneth, and also Mrs. Wilson's crush on Rupert were slightly amusing, but ended up trivial. While there were a few times where I wondered if someone would open the chest and expose David's dead body, the majority of the film dragged on until the secret was discovered.
Throughout the film I found many dark, clever hints of the murder. The candles on top of the chest seemed to be just dinner candles sitting next to a nice feast; however, they symbolized David's death like a funeral. Also, the story of Philip killing the chicken was clever because it resembled and symbolized David's death. Hitchcock tried to create suspense as Philip became very agitated from the story telling, but unfortunately failed. More dark hints from the murder happened as Brandon gave David's father the rope used to kill David to tie up his books. Hitchcock's brilliance came out in these scenes, unfortunately however even that could not save the film.
One aspect I did not enjoy about this film was the whole movie was shot in one scene. This was annoying because the audience does not get the visual breaks needed to stay involved and entertained in the film. Hitchcock was inventive and daring with this different approach to filmmaking, however this approach ends up reminding one of a stage play.
Rope is not a thriller. It did not possess the characteristics and does not measure up to today's standards of thrillers. If I would not have had to watch this film in my class, I would have not watched it at all.
27 Rope
"Rope"
For it's time Alfred Hitchcock's suspense film, "Rope" was a masterpiece in it's own right, this is true today as well. The movie brings together elements of suspense of how it feels to commit a horrendous crime along with the excitement of getting away with it. Or so "Brandon" (played by John Dall) and his unwilling assistant "Philip" (played by Farley Granger) think. The two friends commit this crime because they want to prove that they have the intellectual capability to commit the perfect murder. This mind set was shared by their former prep school teacher "Rupert" (played by James Stewart). The difference between Rupert and his apprentices is his ultimate inability to act upon these extreme principals. Brandon and Philip mastermind the plot to kill a mutual friend, David in the opening scene of this film. To add to their "amusement" they hide the dead body in a trunk in the room where a party is later held for Mr. Kentley, David's father. Brandon and Philip also decided to serve the dinner from the chest where the body is hidden. Throughout the entire party the father and other acquaintances are wondering where David is and are concerned that something has happened to him. All the while Brandon is keeping his cool playing along with keeping the murder a secret perfectly. This cannot be said for Philip however. He has been sweating bullets since the guests have arrived to the party.
The technology of this film is not up to present-day standards. The aspect of the film is not particularly to my liking; however Hitchcock uses may other aspects of film making to his advantage. His use of music in the opening scene sets a gloomy mood immediately and makes you suspect that something bad is going to happen or already has happened. Towards the end when Philip is playing the piano and making many mistakes, something he never does also helps set a certain mood that Brandon and Philip are getting closer and closer to being caught by Stewart. Though this film is set in one main room, Hitchcock uses is continuous shot method of camera work to get a sense of what the characters are thinking or feeling. Granger does a wonderful job of playing the unwilling participant in this film. He is constantly fidgeting and sweating with anticipation and worry, while Dall remains calm and collected he unsuccessfully tries to settle Granger down throughout the film until the very end. All the guests seem to be ignorant of anything being wrong except for Rupert. As Rupert plays the character with a remarkable curiosity he is always wondering why Philip is acting so upset and worried. Rupert does a wonderful job at wearing Brandon and Philip down to the breaking point.
While "Rope" may not be the technological masterpiece of present day films, it is very well crafted and stands the test of time to remain on of the greatest suspense films of all time. Who would expect anything less than that from Alfred Hitchcock?
28 The Best Alfred Hitchcock Movie
Not being a fan of Alfred Hitchcock films, Rope was an unexpected surprise. Instead of the usual "Whodunit," suspense of most films, Rope shows the whole murder-taking place. The movie begins with two friends, Brandon and Philip, murdering a classmate David for the thrill of committing the act. Instead of dumping the body and moving on with life, they decide to throw a dinner party. Not only do they throw a party, but also they serve the food to the victim's friends and family off of the chest containing the victim.
The whole movie is based around the dinner party. When David, the unsuspecting victim of Brandon and Phillip doesn't show up to the party his friends and family worry about where he is. Little do they suspect that he is in the room all along. The movie plays around the guests talking about David and even coming close to finding his corpse in the chest. The suspense is focused on whether or not David will be found and the two murderers will be caught. The only real down side to the story line is a disappointing ending that lacks thrill and suspense.
Hitchcock took a chance with this film and it turned out to work in his benefit. Instead of shooting in regular film takes, Hitchcock shot the movie in continuous ten-minute takes. This made it appear a lot like a stage play (which it originally was). When Hitchcock did change takes he did it in very sneaky ways. An example of this would be cutting into the back of a person and then changing to another person. Also instead of just going from one shot to the next he would have the camera follow, an example would be using a close up of a drink to change to another person. This gave the impression to the viewers of being right there where all the action was taking place. Watching the movie made it feel like one was actually at the dinner party.
The acting in this movie was also a nice surprise. James Stewart fit very well into the role of Rupert. Rupert played an important part in the film as Philip and Brandon's old teacher. He was the one who made Brandon think that murder is an art. It was an unusual part for him and he took a chance by playing it. No one could have done a better job than him. The emotions portrayed by John Dall and Farley Granger, who played the killers, were very believable to the viewers. Farley Granger, who played Philip, did an excellent job showing fear and remorse. Through out the movie Philip felt remorseful and his feelings came through in the way he acted. He had a hard time through out the whole dinner party and during more than one occasion said unusual things. Once he started drinking the weird outbursts came more often. The only acting job that I felt was bad was Constance Collier's portray of Mrs. Atwato. This woman couldn't act if her life depended on it. Her facial expressions did not fit the plot. She seemed to always be smiling even when the scene would call for her to frown. Who smiles when people are seriously talking about killing other people? She herself almost destroyed this movie for me. Luckily, the others did such a great job it overshadowed her poor performance.
All in all, I think this is the best Alfred Hitchcock movie made. After passionately disliking both Psycho and The Birds, I expected Rope to be the same kind of horrible movie with bad acting. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that this film was unlike any other movie Hitchcock made. It was suspenseful in a whole new way. Rope kept my interest the whole time, which is unusual for me during any films. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes the unusual in suspense films. Rope is an excellent film and Hitchcock pulled it off great.
29 Unraveling "Rope"
The film "Rope" was a remarkable movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1948. Hitchcock gives this film an unpredictable twist. The film starts with a murder and then builds into a different kind of suspense related to discovery. It doesn't hide the murder or who the murders are. The camera, acting and sound all add to the suspense of the film.
The film holds a strong suspenseful situation in an evening's dinner party. The action is captured in one room and is filmed to give a real time setting. Hitchcock composed the film as if it was taken in one shot, but realistically it was developed from many ten minute shots. The audience can observe breaks between shots when the camera fades into an article on the screen between each ten minute shot. The real feel of time gave this film a memorable outcome.
In recent films the suspense of the murders are held to the end of the movie to give the climax. For example, in the popular movie "Scream" many people are killed throughout the movie but the director hides the discovery of the killer giving us the suspense of not knowing. Unlike being unaware of the killers, Hitchcock determines the murders in the beginning and then sets the scene depending on the murder. It was unsure if Philip (Farley Granger) and Brandon (John Dall) would kill one more of their guest or all of them. Because of this uncertainty, the viewers were kept guessing at all times.
One of the ways Hitchcock builds the suspense in "Rope" is by making the audience identify with the murders' fear of discovery. One example of this takes place in the scene following dinner. The camera keeps the focus on the suspense of finding the corpse. Hitchcock makes it positive that the body of David (Dick Hogan) was going to be found when the maid returns the books to chest. The focus is on her while the others are conversing in the room. The maid removes each item one at a time dragging the scene out to the discovery of David. Then she slowly lifts the chest and I am thinking, "Brandon look over at the chest, Brandon look over at the chest." Rupert (James Stewart), a headmaster of a school that Brandon and Philip had attended, then assists the maid and the corpse had to be found. Brandon, relaxed, pushes down the chest and the scene continues.
I am fond of Brandon's acting in this situation, because he never gives the murder away. On the other hand, Philip (Farley Granger) can not control himself. He becomes drunk and is repeatedly blurting out comments that could give the murder away. The acting of Farley Granger made me, as a viewer, want to shut him up. I was able to relate with the stress that Brandon was receiving from Philip. I interacted with the film because I witness people often that are drunk and can't control the things they say. He continues to drink because he was stressing over a situation. Philip's character is someone that many college students can relate with.
The camera focuses on the diminutive things that accomplish a shocking feel. The focus on the books that were tied up with the rope that was used to kill David made the audience shriek. Another scene that the camera captures brilliantly is when Rupert is handed a hat out of the closet, and the maid notices it isn't his. Rupert turns the hat and reveals the initials D.K. I was shocked; I knew that Rupert solved the mystery of the missing David. I became frustrated that he didn't do anything about his discovery. The movie once again captured suspense.
The noises in the back of the film set the scene also. When Rupert comes into the apartment to find his cigarette case that he supposable left there we hear sirens. The scene is set as an enforcing situation according to the noises Hitchcock uses. The movie has added features that keep the suspense rolling.
This film refers to murder as an art. It is committed by the superior to the inferior. One might ask, "How do we know the superior to the inferior?" Since Hitchcock left us guessing why David was the inferior and Brandon and Philip were the superiors some may think this movie was down right horrible. Two men killed another man for their joy. They had no reason other than they saw it as an art. In my opinion, this Hitchcock film was unique; it had an unpredictable plot that I was anxious to decipher. "Rope" is incomparable to any other movie I have viewed.
30 Too Much Rope
The Alfred Hitchcock movie "Rope" is a film about two men Brandon and Phillip (played by John Dall and Farley Granger) who strangled their friend David. As a bonus to their crime, the murderers invited over David's family and friends for dinner. The serving table was the chest that David's body was in. David's family was concerned why he wasn't showing for the party. The question wasn't if the murders were going to be caught but when and by whom.
"Rope" is very similar to Hitchcock's other movies "The Birds," and "Psycho." These three movies are uninspiring in many ways. They all are old and very dated; they have terrible sound and filming effects. Hitchcock's way of filming the setting is very unorganized and not planned out. He had quick sloppy scenes and the acting didn't have emotion. The movie seems as though it had been thrown together quickly. Hitchcock's film work isn't exquisite, it seems as though he fits the subject in the viewfinder and tapes. The background and angles aren't anything spectacular.
Starting the movie off with murder is an absurd way to begin the story. Having the murder scene in the beginning of the movie lets the audience know who the murderers are. Hitchcock didn't really keep his audience on the edge of their seats. If he had the murder in the middle of the movie it would have kept the audience wondering if the murderers were going to be caught and who they were. With Phillip scared the whole time and acting peculiar around the guests and Brandon always giving away suspicious clues, the audience knows that the murders are going to get caught. "Rope" is not an engaging addition to the suspense genre.
I thought that "Rope" was not a creative movie. The characters were mostly centered in the screen, and there wasn't much to focus on, except their mouths. Hitchcock's way of filming in only three rooms of one apartment was very frustrating and made you feel claustrophobic. That might have been what he was trying to do, but the effect is more prone to make the audience stop watching and rent something jumpier and more amusing.
This movie was not suspenseful and could have used more gruesome scenes to get the audience attached. There were many things about the movie that were cheesy. The scene in which Phillip broke the martini glass in his hand and cutting himself didn't fit with the plot. For all of the build up the scene has little effect on building suspense. The part where Brandon gave David's father books tied with the same rope that killed his son didn't have any suspense what so ever. The question is, can this movie get any worse? When the maid, Mrs. Wilson, was planning on opening the chest and then stopped by Brandon, was the worst part of the whole movie. I think that was just an added scene to make the movie even more cheesy. That scene of "Rope" absolutely made the movie horrendous.
"Rope" is terrible film. Alfred Hitchcock's movie is not impressive at all. I don't think any of his movies even compare to modern day thrillers. The plot, setting, filming, and acting is not inspiring what so ever. I would not recommend this film.
31 The Rope that Left Hitchcock Hanging
Rope- the heavily criticized suspense thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock-is without a single creative and exciting component. Some people may say that the movie Rope is a true classic while others say it was the worst movie ever made. I myself hated the movie. This movie is one of Hitchcock's poorer performances. This film may assume to be exciting because of the plot but it is rather boring and uninteresting.
The movie Rope centers around two young men Brandon and Phillip who kill a prep schoolmate, just for the fun of it. To heighten the thrill they invite the decedents family and friends to their apartment; David's body still hidden within the chest in the living room. Hitchcock reveals the true murderers foolishly, this ultimately hurts his film. This mistake cost Hitchcock publicity and ratings because the central mystery of the film was already exposed. This movie was Hitchcock's first color film. His inspiration in directing the film version of the stage play the was his experience with the real life Leopold-Loeb murder case. This film would seem to be exciting because of the plot but it is rather boring and uninteresting.
Rope suffers from a horde of problems that bog down the plot and suspense of the film. From the start we know who the true villains are. This allows the audience to watch the movie already knowing what truly happened. The only thing the audience can possibly look forward to is to see if Brandon and Phillip actually get caught. All these foolish games that Phillip and Brandon play don't seem to make sense, but then nothing in Rope does. It is hard to understand what Hitchcock was thinking when he took on this film or if he was even thinking at all. Hitchcock wasn't thinking when he directed this redundant film. The acting in this film was another excuse for hating Rope. I was not impressed by the characterizations at all. It looked as if people were picked off the street and thrown into the movie. This was so bad that it seemed the actors were reading off a script. The acting was dull and dreary as were there facial expressions.
The camera work through the whole film was low tech and very simple. Add on special features were not present which made the film tiresome to watch . The cameras went from one character to another as the actors talked amongst one another in the small gloomy apartment. When the camera would switch characters the camera would show the back of the person to show a different look and perspective on the scene. I thought this camera work was very poor.
Soundtrack music and background sound in this film was scarce and not heard of. Sound appeared in only one scene throughout the whole film. This pointless sound effect was used when Janet and Kenneth were talking. This effect had no significance and didn't transform the mood of the scene at all. A film like this would actually hurt his reputation because he is so well known for all his other magnificent and horrifying films.
In conclusion this film seemed to have an interesting and suspenseful plot. But overall this movie was horrendous and a waste of time to watch. Watching Rope inspired me to want to hang myself. Torture and misery was at an all time high as I watched and waited for the movie to get over. With the movie completed, my life is now back to normal. The only people that I could see watching this movie would be people that are obsessed with Alfred Hitchcock's pieces of work. I would never think about watching this movie again or even any other movie by Hitchcock.
32 Hamilton's Great Play turns into Hitchcock's Horrible Film.
Alfred Hitchcock is known all over the world for his famous and ground breaking work in the genre of suspense films. Everyone has at least heard of his famous thrillers "Psycho" and "The Birds", but most people have not heard of his less famous movies like "Rope." In "Rope," a planned murder, followed by a sick party, demonstrate Hitchcock's usual twists and surprises. With one small exception, the story itself does not contain Hitchcock's long, gore-filled, and disturbing scenes. One big problem with the film is that it is adapted from a stage play. Many movies have been adapted from plays, however, they have usually been expanded on because of the greater resources that are available in the film genre such as multiple, more complex scenes. Hitchcock ignored the fact that he was making a movie and decided to basically film a stage play. The movie was filmed in what is called "real time." "Real time" is where the entire movie seems like it is filmed as one scene. This bores and forces the audience to see the not so important and sometimes tedious actions or the film and causes distractions. The movie also lacked good music and sound affects to add to the suspense and drama of its scenes. As for the selection of characters, some seemed to fit the parts, while others did not. Hitchcock is known for his famous camera work in the movie "Psycho" where he employs multiple camera angles. In "Rope," the camera comes from the same point in the room and at the same height and angle the entire time which contributes to the audience's lack of interest. Overall, the movie was boring to watch and a waste of money to buy. If you're looking for a good Hitchcock movie, your money would be better spent on "Psycho" or "The Birds." But then some say Hitchcock takes pride in being different from the rest. "Rope" certainly sets itself apart from movies of that period and without question to the movies of today. Most people would consider it a timeless classic, however I don't agree.
33 Throw Them A Rope
"Throw Them a Rope"
The movie, "Rope" is a film that keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish. Instead of a thriller with a lot of violence and action like many of Alfred Hitchcock's other movies "Rope" is more of a thinking thriller with a mean twist to it.
It all begins within the first few minutes when Brandon and Phillip decide to kill an acquaintance of theirs, David, just to see what murder feels like. Moments later they throw a dinner party where they invite members of David's family, his friends, and an old house supervisor from prep-school.
Throughout the movie there are a few times when some of the guests almost pick up on what Brandon and Phillip have done, but it remains a secret until Rupert, the prep-school house supervisor, finally picks up on some of the sneaky comments.
The occasional mysterious tune played on the piano by Phillip and the sound of silence is enough to keep one's heart beating, wondering what is to happen next.
Besides the occasional unsteadiness of the camera and a poor acting job by one or two of the actors, "Rope" turned out to be a good and exciting movie.
The film "Rope" is a fast paced engaging movie and Hitchcock did a fine job of taking the play script and turning it into a film. I would definitely take the time to watch this film again.
34 Alfred Hitchcock Ties the Knot on another Classic
Hitchcock's "Rope" is everything you would expect in a film from such a heralded director. It has drama, suspense, and more twists than a French braid. The entire movie takes place in what appears to be a swanky loft apartment owned by either just friends or lovers - at times it is hard to tell - Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Philip Morgan (Farley Granger). The two characters murder an old classmate for the fun and enjoyment of it then throw a party for the deceased's closest friends and relatives.
The question during the party is not if the Brandon and Philip will be caught but when and by whom. Many times throughout it appears the guests at the party will stumble upon the truth. That they don't realize what is going on becomes almost laughable. The one mistake the murderers make is inviting the inspiration of their crime to the post party. Their old schoolteacher Rupert Cadell (Jimmy Stewart) who once taught them - most likely satirically - that only a few privileged people in this world were allowed to commit murder, appears to be onto them at once.
As for the acting in "Rope" I was unimpressed. Although Dall and Stewart give believable and very entertaining performances the complete opposite can be said for the rest of the cast, particularly Granger who is annoying and obviously trying way too hard. Aside from the actors shortcomings the idea behind this film is still unique and engaging, it is proper that Hitchcock direct this film because only he can convey its true morbidity.
I would recommend to any movie fan especially the Hitchcock lovers to go see this movie. It uses filming techniques that were unheard of at the time this film was produced. That along with a well thought out plot and storyline makes for a definite classic. If it appears slow at times try to appreciate the camerawork and other subtleties that make all Hitchcock films brilliant.
35 Inclinations of a Symphony
Everyone views art in different ways. Artists show their work through symphonies, paintings, and writings. There is symbolism in the way we perceive what we are viewing. Alfred Hitchcock was an artist. He directed films and did things so daring that no one else could compare to him. Not everyone viewed him as an artist, but the majority of people who view his films need to take a step back and analyze why he did the things he did.
Rope, Hitchcock's first color film was released in 1948, after a number of earlier successes in Great Britain and the United States. The film begins with two young men strangling one of their good friends, David Kentley. The two men Brandon Shaw and Phillip Morgan seem to view murder as an art. They experiment with the art of life and death. Brandon and Phillip decide to celebrate David's death by hosting a dinner party. They place the food onto a dark wooden chest that David's body is hidden. It is deceptive and inhumane to even think about doing such a thing, but to them it is all part of the symphonic rings. They played their cards like a tragic symphony - beginning with a light grotesqueness and ending with despair. Their acting abilities of the characters were very affective - filled with a nervous happiness. An eagerness to get rid of the people they invited to a dinner party.
Hitchcock decided to play with the filming techniques by having the reels of film seem like it was one continuous shot. By going in and out of dark areas seemed to reflect the evil slyness of the main characters. This technique also made the film seem like a play, which Rope was originally intended for.
What if someone opened the chest? What if their guests saw their nervousness? What would happen to them after they were caught? Hitchcock was able to make the film serious yet it has the sense of an awkward - almost horrifying approach. Certain places within the film makes the audience feel this way - especially the middle scenes.
During the middle scenes everyone at the party was wondering why David hadn't arrived yet. The thing that kept me interested was the fact that there was a sensed nervousness throughout all the middle scenes. Brandon's maid lifted part of the chest while cleaning and the audience wanted them to be caught yet at the same time didn't. While people were talking about life - Phillip was sweating and talking angrily. Brandon wasn't as nervous as Phillip; Phillip's nervousness was apparent because he was being examined by Rupert Cadell (the boys' old house-master).
Looking at this film from a symphonies point of view, it was filled with drama, horror, mystery, and faith from the audience. Drama was captured with love. Horror was apparent by the thoughts that the murderers may actually get away with their vicious crime - murdering someone just for the sake of the thrill - the art. Mystery was from the audiences' perspective - their anticipation. Faith was present in the audience - thinking that Brandon and Phillip would be caught and the repercussions would be something significant.
Hitchcock made his claim as a profound director when making Rope. He took something so awful and made it real. All of the camera shots and the nervousness of the characters really made this film what it is. A classical Symphony.
36 An Asphyxiating Film
Alfred Hitchcock - one of the most widely known directors of all time - was known as •À?The Master of Suspense.•À? In 1948 Hitchcock directed the moral thriller •À?Rope.•À? In my opinion •À?Rope•À? is not only a very splendid film, but rather thought provoking as well. It is different than any other movie that I have ever seen. The methods and camera style involved in this film make it one of a kind. The plot is rather intriguing making the film a suspenseful thriller.
In the opening scene of •À?Rope•À? a murder takes place and the suspense begins. Most thrillers today lead you up to a murder that takes place farther into the film. In •À?Rope•À? the main characters, Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger), decide to murder their friend David (Dick Hogan) because they feel that they are superior to him. Brandon and Phillip strangle David with a small piece of rope and place his body in a wooden chest in the living room of their New York apartment. The two hold a small party that night. The guests include David•À?s father (Cedric Hardwicke), his aunt Mrs. Atwater (Constance Collier), his fiancÌ©e Janet (Joan Chandler), his rival Kenneth (Douglas Dick), and the boys•À? former teacher Rupert (James Stewart). Brandon and Phillips servant Mrs. Wilson (Edith Evanson) is also in attendance. At the dinner party, the food is served on top of the chest which holds David•À?s lifeless body. Everyone at the party keeps asking about the whereabouts of David. Brandon and Phillip both act suspiciously at the party. Brandon keeps dropping hints that he knows something about David•À?s location while Phillip•À?s overwhelming guilt and fear of getting caught betrays the fact that all is not business as usual.
This movie keeps you in suspense. The whole time you question whether or not Brandon and Phillip will be caught. One of the scenes in the movie that I thought was nail-bitingly suspenseful was when the servant, Mrs. Wilson, almost discovered David•À?s body. She was going to put away a few books that the guests had been looking at. The camera work was done very well in this scene. The camera follows each of her movements as she takes the food, the dishes, then the candles, and lastly the tablecloth off of the chest where David•À?s body is hidden. Mrs. Wilson started to open the chest and just before she opens it enough to see inside, Brandon comes over and shuts the chest and told her she could straighten up the next day. After seeing this film I now know why Alfred Hitchcock is undisputed •À?Master of Suspense.•À?
Hitchcock also used other techniques to make •À?Rope•À? unique and memorable. The camera work in this film is uncommon. The film is a collection of ten minute takes. At the end of each take, the camera zooms into a dark area such as a character•À?s jacket. The result of this impressive camera work is that the story is shot in real time. The period of time in which the film takes place is the same as the length of the film. The setting of "Rope" is only in one place, the living room of Brandon and Phillip's apartment. Hitchcock uses very little sound effects in this film. The only sounds besides the actors•À? voices is that of Phillip playing the piano to distract himself, and the gun shots followed by the sound of sirens at the end of the film. The actors cast in this film are superb and plausible, but James Stewart•À?s performance as Rupert stands out. The scenes with Stewart and his two murdering former students are extremely gripping and believable. He solves the mystery of David•À?s strange disappearance in a way that is natural to his character.
A good thriller film appeals to people of all generations, no matter what decade it was made. A film with excellent directing, successful actors, interesting plot, and unusual camera work is always worth seeing. After viewing this film I now understand why "Rope," along with other Hitchcock films, remains a timeless thriller.
37 Wish I Had A Rope To Hang Myself
Two young men kill for fun in this Alfred Hitchcock moral thriller "Rope." To see a man being strangled to death and then thrown in a chest by two friends might have been shocking for audiences in 1948, but it is nothing compared to the gore and killing seen in movies today or even of "Psycho" only a few years later in 1960. In a good movie I look for good acting, a good story line and a good setting. I also look to make sure that all these elements can withstand the test of time.
I knew before watching Rope that I didn't care for classic films, but after watching this film I really knew for certain I can't stand watching them. I found "Rope" to be very slow and boring. To someone my age the acting in this film is so outdated it makes the film almost painful to watch. I think Julia Childs made a cameo in this movie as Mrs. Atwater with her horrible accent and acting. Some people may be Jimmy Stewart lovers, but he does nothing for me in this one. His speech at the end of the film was heartfelt, but to me his voice and physical presence made it just plain cheesy. I'm a movie lover but I found it hard to stay awake during this one.
The plot of the movie was somewhat interesting; Hitchcock brings up the question if it is moral to kill for no reason or simply for the thrill of it. Hitchcock also questions if it is okay to kill someone because they are "inferior." Throughout the hour and twenty minutes of "Rope" Brandon and Phillip, the killers and two main characters, argue back and forth if it was okay that they just killed their former colleague David because he was inferior to them. While watching "Rope" I found it hard to stay focused on the film because of the monotone speaking and uninspiring acting by Brandon, Phillip and cast. These two factors just further back up the fact that this film has not withstood the test of time. The fact that the set was about as entertaining as the acting in this movie didn't help either.
While "Rope" was shot in a unique way, the setting never changed. In this movie Hitchcock filmed in continuous ten minute segments, every ten minutes zooming in on the back of someone's back. Although it made the movie unique in a way, it made it no more memorable. Filming "Rope" in this way made it very play like, well a low budget play, with enough money for only one set. In this movie Hitchcock filmed in continuous ten minute segments, every ten minutes zooming in on the back of someone's back. This effect made it seem as if they never had an actual break in the film. I found this to be different and something I had never seen before, but still didn't make the movie fun to watch. Throughout watching this movie I couldn't really find anything that I found engaging or attention grabbing. Many people seem to enjoy this movie because of the fact that Hitchcock was the director and they enjoy his works. I personally couldn't handle it. This film may have been good for the time, but to today's standards the film was unimpressive and hard to watch.
38 Rope is no Dope
Hitchcock's "Rope" is no Dope
"Rope," directed by Alfred Hitchcock was released in 1948. Even though it was released over 50 years ago it stands the test of time and still thrills audiences even by today's standard. Hitchcock doesn't need to use fancy special effects or explosions to make this movie great. However, one of the reasons "Rope" is as good as it is, is because of its excellent line up of actors and actresses. This line up includes; John Dall as Brandon Shaw, Farley Granger as Phillip Morgan, Joan Chandler as Jane Walker and James Stewart as Rupert Cadell.
The plot is simple but intriguing. Two posh cohorts, Brandon and Phillip, decide that they are superior humans than their friend David Kentley. They reason, since they are superior to David, they have every right to kill him. There is no motive; they simply kill David for the thrill of killing another human. Hitchcock has the murder take place in the opening scene to let the viewers know who the killers are. This aspect makes it interesting for the viewer; you get to know what the actors do not know.
The movie "Rope" has suspense from the opening scene to the closing scene. Believe it or not some people actually wouldn't think a movie about a small dinner party would be that great of a thriller. But Rope is a thriller of its own kind. It is purely a physiological thriller, and doesn't rely on gory murders or special effects. The fact that Hitchcock can create such a great amount of suspense without these techniques shows how good "Rope" really is. The plot, acting and dialogue are what make this movie the thriller it is. I think "Rope" is a one of a kind movie that should not be missed by anyone
39 The Perfect Murder?
Universal Studios and Warner Brothers came together to make a killer movie. Director Alfred Hitchcock and all of the actors make you feel like you are one of the guests at their party.
The all-star cast includes John Dall as Brandon and Farley Granger as Phillip. James Stewart plays Ruport Cadell, Brandon and Phillip's retired schoolmaster. The rest of the cast is top notch throughout the whole film.
The plot of the film is very twisted. The opening scene grabs your attention quickly by watching David getting strangled to death by a rope, which happens to be the name of the film. The whole rest of the movie you are left wondering and worrying about the killers getting caught. The plot is based around the idea of a perfect murder and how certain people think they can get away with it. Ruport has this fascinating idea that there are people that are superior over others. He thinks that this superiority means that they can take the live of someone who "under" them. Ruport was just making this up for some discussion, but Brandon and Phillip take it to the next step. It is very interesting and creates some discussion in and out of the movie.
I felt there was one down side to the film. The whole setting was done in one room. Some may think that this enhances the fact that we are in real time, but I felt that it bored the audience. There isn't enough variety with the scenery. It is only a small draw back and I still stayed engrossed throughout the entire film.
Alfred Hitchcock is amazing when it comes to suspense. He enjoys using camera angles to create this suspense, and he does it better than anyone in the business. At one point in the film, the maid is clearing off a book chest, where the food was served, in order to put the books back in. This builds suspense in itself because of what is inside the book chest. Hitchcock decided to have the camera on just the maid and the book chest while the party is out of the screen. This is very suspenseful because it is like you are the only one in the room with the maid. It makes you want to jump up and slam the chest door shut. Just in the nick of time, Brandon makes it over to shut the door for you.
There is another scene where Ruport is talking about how someone could have strangled someone to death and not get caught. While Ruport is talking the camera is following the path he is making in his mind. It brings the whole thing to life and you feel more involved in the film. Hitchcock is amazing with this aspect of camera work. He makes you feel like you are involved in the plot and like you are in the room with all of the actors.
Alfred Hitchcock tried a very interesting concept with this film. They could only shoot in eight to ten minute durations because of the size of film back then. Despite this, Mr. Hitchcock wanted to make it seem like one scene. He did this by zooming in on the back of an actor or a piece of furniture. This was a very good idea and it made the viewer feel like they were a part of the movie. It was very experimental and Mr. Hitchcock pulled it off well.
Throughout the movie there were many innuendos about death. At one time, one of the actors talks about killing two birds with one stone. Another time one actor asks if the party is a birthday party and Brandon says it is quite the opposite of a birthday. It is like Brandon gets a kick out of hinting towards the killing.
Over all I feel the film was a first rate thriller because it keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time. It takes you through sorrow and hate towards Brandon and Phillip at the beginning to fear of them getting caught in the middle and finally joy when they finally do get caught. The acting is stupendous and you are left waiting to hear the next word to come out of the actor's mouths. Rope is a great film and disserves the title of a classic thriller.
40 Unconventional, Innovative, Strange -- True Hitchcock!
Dinner for eight (the guest of honor won't be joining the party). A gathering of former Ivy League chums, a girl they rivaled over, a highly admired former Professor all were acquainted with, a chatty maid, the father and aunt of a strangly absent guest of honor all gather for clever conversation and intriguing food and drink.
The setting is typical Hitchcock, as is the twisted murder plot. The scene opens with the evil deed, then resumes with the emminent dinner. Hitchcocks first ever color production, "Rope" was shot in very long scenes (some lasting more than 10 minutes in a single frame), the film appears like a theatre play. Similarities to the infamous 1920s high profile Leopold-Loeb murder case are obvious but denied by a disclaimer at the end of the film.
This is an undeniably "different" and very interesting Hitchcock Classic. James Stewart (pretty much playing himself, as usual), is effective as the "master detective", determined to get to the bottom of what's going on. A very young Farley Granger is great as the "frightened kid" under the thumb of his dominearing older brother. For fans of the Master, this is an enjoyable trip into the exploration of some very disturbed minds.****
41 Come on film and psychology students!
This was an intense and aborsbing production!
42 One of Hitchcocks Best!
This film does not get the attention of other well-known Hitchcock films, though it should. It is a disturbing mystery involving the murder of a young man by his "friends". Though the film has some dated mid-century cliches, it is very forward thinking, especially in light of today's spree/joy killers.
The acting is terrific. The nature of the plot requires tight, almost claustrophoic acting to make the chemistry work. James Stewart is excellent as the professor the boys admired and feared.
43 False start for Hitchcock-Stewart
This was the first of four collaborations between Alfred Hitchcock and James Stewart, and it was pretty much of a catastrophe. It was filmed as a stage play, with the camera up on stage among the players, all in continuous takes. The murder mystery plot was based loosely on the Leopold-Loeb case a quarter century earlier. The movie was roundly and correctly condemned when it was released as being excessively cold-blooded; Hitchcock let himself get carried away a bit; and it flopped at the box office. Fortunately it didn't sour Hitchcock on James Stewart and they went on to make three of the greatest American movies ever.
44 Simple but Satisfying!!
Hitchcock is of course known for his suspenseful movies but his films are also known for their cross country pursuits (THIRTY NINE STEPS), dark humor (THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY), action climax (TORN CURTAIN), blond heroine (REAR WINDOW) and special effects (THE BIRDS). Rarely is the film carried by the strength of the actors.
ROPE is one of Hitchcock's few films that ignore most of the typical attributes mentioned above, except for some dark humor, and allows the actors to carry the whole story. There is no mystery in this film for the viewers as we witness the murder at the start of the film. The suspense is generated by the actors as they deal with the absence of the murder victim from a party hosted by the two murderers. The family, fiance and friend of the victim, who don't know he has been killed, become increasingly upset at his absence from the party. The maid helps fuel the tension as she gossips while conducting her duties. The former headmaster of the school the murder victim, the two hosts and the other young male guest all attended puts the pieces together. Meanwhile, the two hosts try and drop as many hints as they can that the missing party member has been killed and that they did it. For one of the hosts it seems to fuel his own idea that he is superior to all his guests and that if they were his equal they could figure it all out. The other host can barely keep it together as he experiences doubt and regret about what he has done and worries about being caught.
Rope boasts some big named actors such as James Stewart and Sir Cedric Hardwicke but also brings some less known actors such as John Dall and Douglas Dick. The mix works out fine. Stewart, who breaks from his "down home-everyman roles, is perfect as the philosophical headmaster who with his abstract ideas that he passed on to his students really is responsible for the killing that takes place. I really enjoyed watching Joan Chandler as the soon to be fiance of the murdered man. It was a treat to see Hitchcock use a brunette instead of his standard blonde for this movie.
This was Hitchcock's first color movie and the set is beautiful. The view of the city from the killers apartment is so life like it is hard to believe that it is a manufactured setting.
Lastly, the DVD for this movie also includes the trailer. The trailer is the only time the viewer gets to see the murder victim alive and it adds some backdrop to the relationship between the victim and his soon to be fiance. The documentary was well done and informative
45 Beautifully restored. It's all here. High-quality.
Alfred Hitchcock's ROPE has finally been restored for DVD in beautiful color. It's all here. The picture is high-quality and the sound is superb. I will not say a word about the film's plot because I do not want to spoil it for anyone. The film is a very rare and there is no other film like it. On your DVD in the "Bonus Materials" section is a new documentary "Rope Unleashed". How wonderful that they interviewed Farley Granger! The thing about ROPE is, is that I can watch this film over and over again and still my eye catches something new. This DVD is a must-buy for any collector and movie buff of murder and mystery involving men. Just wash your tv screen and your glasses and sit with your favorite bowl of popcorn and enjoy.
46 A great film!
This is a very good film. It is filled with tension, suspense and drama. I recommend this film, so go see it!
47 I disagree with "official" editorial review
How on earth could the official amzaon.com editorial review,although generally accurate in its praise and decription of the film,say that this is not among The Master?s top achievements. Please recall the year was 1948 and also recall what Hitchcock actually accomplished:make a seemingly simple screenplay that unravels ENTIRELY within the confines of a dining room turn into a nail biting classic. How many directors around today(or,for that matter in 1948 could pull that off??!!This is defintely amomg my top Hitchcock favorites,and,forgive me,but I appreciated "Rope" more than "Rear Window",which unto this day is still hailed as THE Number One Hitchcock.
48 I disagree with "official" editorial review
How on earth could the official amzaon.com editorial review,although generally accurate in its praise and decription of the film,say that this is not among The Master's top achievements. Please recall the year was 1948 and also recall what Hitchcock actually accomplished:make a seemingly simple screenplay that unravels ENTIRELY within the confines of a dining room turn into a nail biting classic. How many directors around today(or,for that matter in 1948 could pull that off??!!This is defintely amomg my top Hitchcock favorites,and,forgive me,but I appreciated "Rope" more than "Rear Window",which unto this day is still hailed as THE Number One Hitchcock.
49 Technically fascinating filming of a great stage play
Many people are today unaware that in the late 1940s Hitchcock went through a bit of a dead period. Between NOTORIOUS, released in 1946 but completed earlier, and STRANGERS ON A TRAIN (1951), Hitchcock made no films that are generally regarded as among his greatest. Of these, ROPE is the most interesting. One of the five "Lost Hitchcock" films that were unavailable for a couple of decades, it is primarily interesting for the way that Hitchcock wants to see what he can do with a set of self-imposed limits. Hitchcock at montage and editing, just as he was perhaps the screen's greatest master at the extended shot, but in ROPE he eliminated all montage and editing. The entire film is a series of eight minute shots, that being the longest cameras at the time could shoot before running out of film. The only editing, therefore, was planning a transition from one reel to another, either by having the camera zoom very close to someone's back, thereby producing a completely black screen, or by a standard cut and jump to another person. It is fascinating figuring out how he deals with such problems as how to make the sky through the soundstage windows appear to be changing. All in all, a very, fascinating film.
Unfortunately, apart from the technical delights of the film, it is far from one of Hitchcock's best. It is by no means a bad film, but he probably made twenty that were better. The acting is very professional, but it all feels very, very much like a filmed play. Several of the performances lack the subtlety that we associate with film rather than stage acting. Often the viewer is left with the impression that the actors are merely reciting lines, rather than portraying characters. Jimmy Stewart, Cedric Hardwicke, and Farley Granger, who would star in Hitchcock's next masterpiece STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, stand out in an otherwise lackluster cast.
But Hitchcock at less than his very best is very, very worth watching. My belief has long been that Alfred Hitchcock and Ernst Lubitsch were the two most gifted directors to have spent most of their careers in Hollywood, and is the standard by which all other action, crime, and suspense directors must be judged. So, in this film we see the Master at work, even if on one of his lesser creations.
The events, of course, were loosely based on the Leopold and Loeb murders, in which two University of Chicago undergraduates murdered a younger male for approximately the same reasons found in ROPE.
50 Still trying to understand the experience
Let me state first that I am a huge Hitchcock fan and am only two films away from having all of his Universal pictures on DVD, in addition to all the early British films, etc. I am a Hitchcock fan, though I had never seen "Rope" until purchasing this DVD. This is both typical and non-typical Hitchcock. The suspense is there, naturally, and the atmosphere is so thick you could cut it with a knife. It is certainly enthralling, philosophical, and peppered with typical Hitchcock dark humor. Still, it left me wanting... this is by far the shortest Universal picture he ever made, and it shows. It just ends, and it left me really wanting more and more... there are no car chases, no climatic finales atop Mount Rushmore or a shootout in an opera house. It just ends, neatly and quickly. This lack of action can most be compared to "Rear Window," but "Rope" lacks the voyueristic fetishism that made that movie such a classic human drama. This plays on other emotions, and I am still trying to understand the experience. 4 stars for the film, minus one because the bonus material is not quite up the standards of the other Universal releases. Still, a recommended Hitchcock experience.
51 One of my all time favorites
I didn't even notice the "gimmick" the fist time I watched this movie... I was too engrossed in the story. I might agree that Steward was mis-cast... but overall, I still love the movie.
52 this is a classic, but it's not Hitch's best by any means
Hitch did a lot better and he did a lot worse.
Rope is one of those movies where the concept WORKS. How many times have you said THAT about a "concept" movie made in the last couple decades?!
I highly rec this movie to any poor soul who hasn't had the chance to see it. It may not be a "keeper" for the casual movie fan ... but it's worth a look. You may be surprised at how re-watchable it is.
53 Best Smoking Movie Ever.
Blah blah technical. Blah blah stage play. Blah blah Leopold & Loeb. Blah blah Jimmy Stewart. Blah blah 'master of suspense'. Blah blah wooden acting. Blah blah continuous reels. Blah blah macabre philosophies. Blah blah boys' club. Blah blah Cedric Hardwicke. Blah blah wordplay.
It's time we saw this for what it is - the Best Smoking Movie Ever. The last act is wholly dependant on a cigarette-case. Everyone lights up all the way through.
An absolute must for fans of tobacco in film, up there with any noir you care to name.
(Note: best cigarette in a film, however, must go to 'The Exorcist', where the doctor examining Regan steps out into the hospital corridor and lights up while talking to her mother.)
54 Merely a technical exercise?
The most formally daring of Hitchcock's thrillers also happens to be his most distressingly perverse, heralding the master's burgeoning fascination with the logic, psychology, and inexplicable appeal of murder. In this case, he's dealing with unmotivated murder, as he follows in near-real-time the diabolical exploits of two college students who slay one of their peers and then stage a dinner party merely to examine their guests' suspicions over the man's absence - all of this for the sake of carrying some radical academic theorizing into full practice. As the principal photography is comprised of only a dozen or so shots, the cuts between them disguised by momentary obscuring of the image, the audience is automatically compelled into complicity with the crime from its execution all the way to its necessary final ramifications. The men's tyrannical experiment transforms into something of a sickly alluring game and then, on satiric terms, emerges as a send-up of the model theatrical dinner party by undercutting the dialogue, generally prim and hackneyed as it is, with unwitting references to the corpse occupying the same room with the participants. Apart from everything else, this breed of black comedy is delicious. Later, though, the climactic "moral apotheosis" articulated by the Jimmy Stewart character serves to emphasize the iniquity underlying what we've found so fiendishly entertaining with the whole affair, and though this all may sound too preachy on first viewing, it actually delivers a rather intriguing point beyond face value, leading us to consider (through exaggerated means, no doubt) the inability of intellectualism to distinguish idealized hypothesis from a complex human reality.
55 HITCHCOCKs MOST DISTURBING FILM
1948's ROPE is a thoroughly enthralling and disturbing look at a thrill killing perpetrated by two prep-school chums (John Dall and Farley Granger) possibly suggested subconsciously by their unwitting professor (James Stewart). This film has often been characterized notably only as Hitchcock's great experiment. He shot it in ten-minute takes contrary to his stylistic use of effective story telling through editing. This was a technique that he also employed to a lesser degree by Hitchcock in 1949's UNDER CAPRICORN. However, ROPE is first and foremost a riveting tale bordering on the perverse.
56 The Master Confines Himself
What is the toughest challenge a director can undertake? Making an epic in the sea or desert? Imagine making a film where all the conflict and resolution happen inside one apartment and nowhere else. Who could do it succesfully? None other than the master himself, Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock goes even further by making all of 'Rope' in eight shots!!
'Rope' is about two brilliant college students who decide to carry out a morbid facination. They murder a man and then serve dinner from the chest where he is buried. They even have candles on top of the chest. In many ways, 'Rope' provides a dry and intellectual stimulation. All the characters, expect the two boys, don't know there is a dead man right under their nose. But since the audience knows, it provides a strange tension. Jimmany Stewart is the heart of it all. There is a terrific and nailbiting scene where he almost figures out what the boys have done.
Alongside being a thriler, 'Rope' raises some questions about who is 'superior' and who is not. Are there people who are really above the mass of humanity? The two boys think so and there is a fantastic debate in the middle of the story. Sadly though, I think this movie is only for Hitchcock fans.
57 Come Over For A Little Game Of Murder
The opening scene of ROPE shows Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger) murdering a fellow classmate and hiding the body in their apartment. For this little game, the two men decided to invite some of the victim's family and associates over for a dinner party, all to see if they can get away with the "perfect" crime. Based on a real life murder case, this Hitchcock film, is notable for several reasons. It was the first film that he shot in color, it was shot using only one set, and in continous takes. The only time that the camera was halted was to re-load it when the film ran out. Highly inventive and ambitious for 1948, the film is still somewhat underapreciated, but boasts great performances from Dall, Granger, and James Stewart as Rupert, a former teacher and mentor to Brandon and Phillip. As he begins to suspect that something is not right, Rupert tries to find out the truth, and stay one step ahead of the 2 partners in crime. The film mixes suspense and a bit of macabre humor that Hitchcock is known for.
The DVD features a good 35 minute retrospective documentary, with Granger and screenwriter Arthur Laurents, among others. There is a photo gallery, trailers, and a few production notes. However, the real star attraction of the disc is the movie itself, a truly overlooked film in the career of Hitchcock. Highly Recommended
58 Unique Idea
By now much has been made of how Hitchcook tried to disguise the film changes in the camera, and how it often did not work out well.
What they overlook is that by using one camera and no cuts the viewer becomes more and more paranoid as if they themselves are in the room and are about to be discovered hiding the secret.
It becomes quite unsettling after awhile even it was not done as well as we would wish, it was a bold idea to even attempt.
The other thing I notice is the heavy homosexual overtones here. These guys are very obviously "lovers" even though there is some dialogue about one of them having "dated" one of the female guests earlier. The fact that the subject is avoided by all makes it even more obvious. I'm not sure if Hitchcock did this on purpose, or the time in which the film was made deemed it impossible, but it's interesting. Even more so is how one character rules over the other svengali-like, to the point of helping him murder someone just for fun. It's obvious that the one guy does not want to go along with this, but he is helpless in the face of h
