Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

wes-connors On a noisy evening, beautiful British stage player Norah Baring (as Diana Baring) is found with the bludgeoned body of a rival actress and a bloody fireplace poker. After a short investigation, Ms. Baring is charged with murdering the other woman. However, the accused can't recall a thing she did, and nearly admits guilt on the witness stand. Actor, playwright, producer and juror Herbert Marshall (as John Menier) thinks Baring may not have committed the crime. Calling the defendant "pretty," Mr. Marshall sets out to prove the attractive young woman did not commit "Murder!" Obviously very well-versed, Marshall mentions Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" and quotes Shakespeare. "The play's the thing" (from "Hamlet"), he believes will help identify the real killer. Marshall decides to write a story about the murderer and engage suspects in the role...This early "talkie" is most notable for being directed by Alfred Hitchcock, eventually acclaimed as one of the 20th century's greatest filmmakers. After a nice (tracking) opening, Mr. Hitchcock gets a little cluttered and almost loses the fact that there is a murder victim somewhere near the bottom of the screen. However, this being Hitchcock, we do get a good look at tea and women's underwear. There is more experimentation here than in some of the master's other early films – which should interest the academic viewer. It's fun to see him developing skills. In one of the supporting roles, Esme Percy (as Handel Fane) stands out. He plays an actor who assumes both masculine and feminine roles into adulthood, due to a high-pitched voice. He's also seen on the flying trapeze in a circus act. Moreover, the character is apparently bisexual. That's versatility! ***** Murder! (7/31/30) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Herbert Marshall, Norah Baring, Esme Percy, Edward Chapman

vincentlynch-moonoi ...at least for American audiences. First, between the primitive state of sound recording in 1930 and the heavy British accents here (not to mention a couple of scenes where the background music drowns out the speech), I found it difficult to catch some of the dialog...and, hence, some of the story line. Second, like many British films, I found the story to move along dreadfully slowly in some scenes.However, it is nice to see some early British Hitchcock, and to then realize how quickly film-making in general, and his film-making evolved shortly after that.I watched this film primarily because the primary star is Herbert Marshall, long a favorite of mine...though he has been somewhat forgotten to history. This was only his third film. And, it is Marshall that makes the film worth watching. What I mean by that is that the first section of the film -- where we learn about the murder -- is poorly and primitively done. It's not until the jury deliberation segment that the film becomes a bit sophisticated, and the first impressive acting we see is by Marshall at the end of the deliberation segment (his first spoken part in the film) and, a short time later as he is shaving. Now that's acting! Everything else to that point has just been people saying lines in rather immature depictions of minor characters...although even the female lead (Norah Baring) is a pretty poor actress with a horrid voice for films. And, unfortunately, the next segment, where Marshall has a chat and dinner with two people from the theatre group from which the accused murderess worked, the dialog is clumsy and awkward. This seems to happen throughout the film...a few pretty good scenes mixed in with some pretty bad scenes.I don't know much about 1920s England, but egads, the settings (whether houses or court rooms or prisons) seem downright primitive. And why are several of the women who clearly live in minimal standards wearing fur coats? There really is only one segment worth of Hitchcock -- the climax. You watch, knowing exactly what the character will do...although he doesn't do exactly what you think he will...but accomplishes the same thing. It's a suspense building scene, nonetheless, and the faces of the crowd are quite impressively done.So, what's the bottom line? If Alfred Hitchcock's eventual career had depended on this film, in my view none of us would have ever heard of Alfred Hitchcock. This isn't the first 1930 film I ever watched...but it's probably the worst. There are only two reasons to watch it -- to see what early Hitchcock was like, or because you admire Herbert Marshall. Otherwise, give it a wise berth.

robert-temple-1 This is a brilliant early work by Alfred Hitchcock, a film full of ingenuity and originality, and showing unmistakable signs of Hitchcock's developing genius. It stars Herbert Marshall, in one of his finest performances as the conscience-stricken character Sir John Menier, a famous stage actor who serves as a juror for the trial of a woman named Diana Baring, who is accused of murder. Strangely enough, Diana Baring is played by a well-known British actress of the time called Norah Baring. Despite being a double-Baring, she does not bare anything but her own polite doubts and hesitancies, being so highly bred that she dare not even be so presumptuous as to try to defend herself. Norah Baring has that high wavering voice, exceedingly thin figure, and shy, saintly manner of the born victim. Such women were fashionable in England in the 1930s. They spoke like overgrown children, with the most perfect diction. Considering how over-mannered and feeble most English men were at that time, perhaps such victim-women were all they could cope with. When the story begins, Baring is found sitting in a kind of trance in front of a fire where a girl who was her friend lies dead, with a poker beside her covered in blood. She continues to sit there looking straight ahead of her in a daze while the police come in and investigate the crime scene in an oafish and clumsy manner, getting their own fingerprints all over everything and acting like the proverbial Mr. Plod. They ask her what happened and she says she cannot remember anything. So this is an excellent start to a jolly good Hitchcock drama. Baring is convicted of murder and due to hang. Marshall had held out against a bullying jury until he finally caved in and agreed to a guilty verdict. But then he had juror's remorse and set about actively trying to prove her innocence before she could be executed. His investigations become more and more complicated, and Baring is unwilling to help him, and in any case genuinely cannot remember what happened. Apparently, Baring thinks it is only good manners to submit to the verdict. If she ever had an ego, it had certainly drained out of her long ago, like rainwater going down a street culvert. Can Marshall possibly accomplish anything against all these odds? He is determined and indomitable. A most fascinating understated and inspired performance is given by Esme Percy, as the ambiguous character Handel Fane, who is both an actor and a trapeze artist who likes to dress in drag. In an understated performance laden with unspoken implications, Percy gives the character all the poignant underpinnings of a man tormented by his own contradictory impulses, and weighed down by the loneliness of his cross-dressing compulsion. It is an amazing psychological study of an extreme character type. Percy certainly was underrated in his career and his excellent interpretation of this difficult character helps make the entire film a true classic.

Martin Teller A mundane and predictable whodunit by Hitchcock, but not entirely without merit. As an early sound picture, there are a number of audio issues. Some of this might be due to a somewhat sloppy print, but the mixing is quite poor and the dialogue is occasionally incomprehensible. More troublesome is the way the actors pause far too long between lines. It completely throws the pacing off and often makes the film an exasperating trial of patience. However, Hitch is having a lot of fun experimenting with the form. Some very inventive use of editing, camera movement and transitions. Also some wonderful shots... the shadow of the gallows creeping up the wall of the cell, just to name one, not to mention the stunning climax. There's some good bits of comedy as well, like the scene where the landlady makes tea and Doucie follows her back and forth between rooms, taking a seat and getting up every time. It could have been a pretty good movie with little more rehearsal to tighten up the pacing, and a slightly more interesting script. As it is, it's not bad, but mostly just baby steps of the development of a great director.