The Age of Commercialism

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

I've only seen a handful of his films, so I'm not a Hitchcock expert. Whenever I see a top ten Hitchcock films or something like that, this movie never gets mentioned, which boggles my mind. As much as I love psycho, this movie is just better in almost every way. It's also sure as hell better than the birds. In rope, I really was displeased with Farley Granger, but this film flipped my perception of him on its head. 9/10

A tale that was originally about moral ambiguity and the blending of two personalities has been reduced to a one dimensional, predictable and frankly ridiculous (out of control merry go round? really?) film. Not only is the story boring, but the characters lack depth or likeability. Hitchcock completely missed the entire point of Strangers On A Train - a disturbing yet skilful novel that once stressed the thin line between good and evil is reduced to a typical good vs evil bore that isn't ambitious in the slightest. The thing that bothered me the most was definitely the characterisation of the protagonist, Guy. From the beginning he's a kind, normal tennis player who would never consider murder. He's a stereotypical "nice guy", who gets everything he wants at the end of the film, and appears to suffer no physical or mental damage from the events that have happened to him. He has no character development at all, no real depth, and his actions are predictable as hell. Everything that made him an interesting character in the original novel has been destroyed. His original career in architecture, for example, which he believes brings him closer to God, was replaced by bloody tennis. Tennis? How does that contribute to the plot at all? His breakdown throughout the novel by Bruno that leads Guy to murder and eventually ruins his life, too, is shattered. The Guy in Hitchcock's movie doesn't resemble the conflicted, messed up character shown in Highsmith's novel and is a complete disappointment.Bruno, too, lacks the obsessive, disgusting nature shown in the novel. No, he is just yet another villain who only cares about murder and would do anything to have it. Anne, while sweet and witty, does not have the strong mindedness that Highsmith's character did. Other characters were just there as plot devices, and their relationships were empty.The love/hate relationship between Bruno and Guy that is an extremely important aspect of Strangers On A Train is replaced by an indifference between both characters. There is no real chemistry between them, and no clear build up of tension that leads to the fight on the merry go round at the end of the film. "Bruno is using Guy, and Guy doesn't want to be used". This is as far as Hitchcock will take their relationship - he completely ignores the way Bruno is obsessed with Guy or that Guy secretly feels he and Bruno are the same person. The original novel clearly raised a moral debate that Hitchcock didn't want to explore The film introduces important plot points without ever dealing with them. Why mirror Bruno and Guy in the first place if you're going to present them as completely different people? What is the point of introducing Bruno's father if Guy isn't going to kill him anyway, and is going to stick to his guns the entire time? In conclusion, this film has no real complexity and I'm sure that anyone who praises it lacks understanding of the point of the original novel. On its own it's a mediocre thriller with stereotypical characters and a better ending, but when compared with the true ambiguity and brilliance of the original novel, it falls flat. A tale of insanity, murder, moral ambiguity and guilt deserves much better than this

Hitchcock gave his best to turn this not so great story into great movie. Acting is very good, especially Robert walker who played his role to perfection. Directing is great and movie had Best Cinematography Oscar nomination. Some scenes are work of genius. Scene when Walker pops balloon with cigarette, heads turning left and right in ridiculous pace while only Walker's head is still fixating our main character, scream in the tunnel, party choking scene, those are just some of moments that will definitely carve into your memory. Perfect Hitchcock atmosphere, but although movie presents its story strongly from the beginning to the end, story itself is, in my opinion, lousy developed. Plot idea is fantastic, but in second part of the movie main characters start to draw illogical moves that are incompatible with basic plot. What looked like beginning of great mystery thriller suddenly turns into psychological drama. Unexpected and unwanted direction of story that begins to lose its meaning, but drama opens the door for actors to show their skills so great directing and acting still cover for screenplay flaws. But, in third part of the movie things go south and movie becomes crime action. It had potential to end with some awesome mindfak twist (I had few ideas), but instead we got dumb, illogical and unconvincing denouement that flushes this potential masterpiece down to mediocre crime story. Still, six would do injustice to fantastic camera, directing and first part of the movie, so I have to compromise and rate it8/10

The basic conceit of "Strangers on a Train" is simple and clever. Writing a script to make it believable, though, is not so simple. That the writers and the director worked out all the obstacles to make it not only believable, but a strong story, is a real achievement. That achievement is aided by the brilliant performance by Robert Walker as Bruno Antony--a quirky, insinuating man with strange ideas and unrefined social skills.When Bruno meets Guy Haines (Farley Granger) by chance on a train, the wheels are set in motion for an ingenious crime plot in which one of them is the unwitting accomplice of the other. Director Hitchcock is certainly in his element with a lead character who feels like he has lost control of his life. The black and white cinematography only serves to emphasize the shadows in which much of the action takes place. Kudos to the beautiful Ruth Roman as Guy's questioning girlfriend Anne Morton, Marion Lorne as Guy's estranged wife Miriam, and especially Patricia Hitchcock as Anne's younger sister Barbara, who provides much of the humor, charm and cleverness of the story.This is not a whodunnit. We know who did it. But Hitchcock takes us on a ride through the murky waters of a dark personality, tightening the screws of intrigue until only one unthinkable outcome seems possible. Who would not want to ride his roller-coaster of suspense?