Jamaica Inn (1939) (75th Anniversary Edition)

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

This is one of the few Hitchcock's I haven't seen.

How good is this film?

well, it's not up there with his masterpieces, but certainly it isn't a bad film.
It is quite good and very enjoyable.
Especially Laughton's performance/character.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

This is one of the few Hitchcock's I haven't seen.

How good is this film?

Hitchcock himself thought it was his worst film and it is considered among his poorest films.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

Hitchcock himself thought it was his worst film and it is considered among his poorest films.

How do you consider it?
Or you haven't seen it either?

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

How do you consider it?
Or you haven't seen it either?

I found it rather dull. I haven't seen it in a long time, but then I also never felt like revisiting it, unlike with the vast majority of Hitchcock's films. I don't need to own this one.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by BrianS

Worse than Under Capricorn? That's the biggest bore that Hitchcock directed post-1933, IMO. I wonder if he was thinking in technical terms. For pure entertainment, I would rank it maybe 5-6 from the bottom in his post-1933 era, which, since it's Hitchcock isn't saying that it's too bad. It's fun for fans of Charles Laughton (especially) and Maureen O'Hara.

Well, that's what he said in the Truffaut/Hitchcock book. I suppose its too late arguing with him about it.

I suppose what added to his disappointment with Jamaica Inn was that it was an unhappy working experience. He didn't get on with Laughton who exerted too much influence over the film and the screenplay got drastically changed against Hitchcock's wishes.

In the end I was answering to someone who wanted to know how good this film is, so I thought it would be worth pointing out that it is generally considered among Hitchcock's worst, including by the master himself. If you haven't seen a lot of Hitchcock, that's not where to start.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by BrianS

Worse than Under Capricorn? That's the biggest bore that Hitchcock directed post-1933, IMO.

I would agree.
I have seen all Hitchcock films from 1935 and on (except Secret Agent), and that was the worst.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

Hitchcock himself thought it was his worst film and it is considered among his poorest films.

Hitchcock said that Champagne was his worst film, though he certainly wasn't fond of Jamaica Inn because of the script changes the censors made and the nightmarish time he had working with Charles Laughton: he felt he refereed the film rather than directed it and ended up regarding it as something to get through and get out of the way before moving to Hollywood.

It's more of a Gainsborough melodrama with an amusingly grotesque performance from Laughton than a typical Hitchcock film, but on its own terms its a well staged and enjoyable smuggling yarn that's a lot better than the BBC's recent (and famously inaudible thanks to the bad accents and mumbling) TV version.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

This is one of the few Hitchcock's I haven't seen.

How good is this film?

IIRC, it's free on Amazon Instant Video.

[EVERYONE LIES]

Originally Posted by BrianS

Worse than Under Capricorn? That's the biggest bore that Hitchcock directed post-1933, IMO. I wonder if he was thinking in technical terms. For pure entertainment, I would rank it maybe 5-6 from the bottom in his post-1933 era, which, since it's Hitchcock isn't saying that it's too bad. It's fun for fans of Charles Laughton (especially) and Maureen O'Hara.

Under Capricorn is by far his worst film.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by EVERYONE LIES

Under Capricorn is by far his worst film.

I think his worst is Topaz, which has one memorable shot.

It's not very good but quite like the way Under Capricorn looks, with its long, prowling takes.

[atfree]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I would agree.
I have seen all Hitchcock films from 1935 and on (except Secret Agent), and that was the worst.

If you have Amazon Prime, Secret Agent is available to stream....

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Agent-M...s=secret+agent

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Akijama

Amazon pre-order

Thanks for the link. Pre-ordered just now

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I think his worst is Topaz, which has one memorable shot.

It's not very good but quite like the way Under Capricorn looks, with its long, prowling takes.

I liked Topaz, it was a good espionage film.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by EVERYONE LIES

Under Capricorn is by far his worst film.

Agreed. It sunk his production company, too.

It is interesting to read comments on the film on IMDB and other forums. There are some people that seem to be trying to convince themselves it's a good film. Some of the takes on "symbolism" in the film will make you laugh.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Agreed. It sunk his production company, too.

It is interesting to read comments on the film on IMDB and other forums. There are some people that seem to be trying to convince themselves it's a good film. Some of the takes on "symbolism" in the film will make you laugh.

Whenever I look through these forums I'm amazed how even the crappiest of films have a fanbase. So it shouldn't be that much of a surprise that one of Hitchcock's lesser films has its supporters.

BTW there aren't many directors who have dealt more overtly with symbolism, so when it comes to Hitchcock that's not that hilarious.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

BTW there aren't many directors who have dealt more overtly with symbolism, so when it comes to Hitchcock that's not that hilarious.

The symbolism I had read were big time reaches, imo. We're talking paintings barely noticeable in the background and such.

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by EVERYONE LIES

Under Capricorn is by far his worst film.

I'm guessing you haven't sat through Number 17 then.

[MikeyHitchFan]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

I'm guessing you haven't sat through Number 17 then.

Yes. It's only barely over and hour and I find myself nodding off every time I watch it- which is twice all the way through.

Hitchcock films worse than Under Capricorn IMO:

Jamaica Inn, No 17, Waltzes From Vienna, Easy Virtue, Juno & The Paycock, Murder!, The Manxman, and a few others.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by obscurelabel

Always good to get more Hitchcock even though I don't think the film is very highly regarded (I've not seen it myself)

I guess Frenzy doesn't count as a British film since it was produced by Universal? Or does it??

Frenzy is counted as a British film and it is quintessentially British.

[captainsolo]

Great news. Hopefully it will be fully uncut as most releases stateside are missing around 12 minutes IIRC.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

Great news. Hopefully it will be fully uncut as most releases stateside are missing around 12 minutes IIRC.

It's fully restored in 4K from the original negative. The restoration premiered at Cannes last year. Just a shame they only had access to one of Hitchcock's lesser titles to lavish such care on. Still, happy that it will be preserved. Now someone just needs to give the VistaVision MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, my favorite Hitchcock film, this level of care.