Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

ElMaruecan82 "Juno and the Paycock" is not a Hitchcock film, this is a film that 'happens to be' directed by Hitchcock. The difference is simple: the film is such a faithful adaptation of Sean O'Casey's successful play of the same title that he can stand as the film's honorific director. This is not to discount Hitchcock's contribution but the Master had his three-decade streak coming so this can be seen as an early warm-up with the then-rising sound technology, but the film is as close to Hitch' universe as Walt Disney is to Russ Meyer.The story is about a dysfunctional family, the Boyles, the father is a loafer who spends time drinking with his friend (and efficient comic-relief) Joxer and talking about his 'glorious' naval past (he's nicknamed Captain, but his tendency to exaggerate his stories doesn't fool anyone). And there's Juno, the responsible and mature housewife, played by Sara Allgood, she was the matriarch in "How Green Was my Valley" but this is where the comparison ends. While John Ford's nostalgic journey in the Welsh country was painted with the beatifying light of nostalgia, "Juno and the Paycock" is a challenge to all the stereotypes about the Irish Family that movies have been nurturing for years, no kids that can be counted by the dozen, no Catholic overzealous devotion, no noble-hearted poor and no men of virtue.For some strange reason, we tend to idealize the past, confident that it was a time where men were men, and women women, time where people fulfilled their duties. We also tend to idealize the spirit of poor people, as if the lack of money was compensated by the gold in their heart. Rubbish, mediocrity is timeless and has no social barriers, the poorer, the more bitter these people get. And the least Captain Boyle works the least he wants to work again and only counts on his woman to carry the house. Sean O'Casey makes a play of high sociological value, setting the story in one of these brownish tenements our memories usually borrow from Jim Sheridan's movie or sketches about Irish community. And the dysfunctional aspect of the family, that slap in the face, also extends to the Irish context.The film is set in the midst of the Civil War and it's not just a colorful detail as it opens with a long oration from Barry Fitzgerald praising the people's courage. This is where Hitchcock's sense of humor shows its head, the many close-ups on the ugly mugs shows a funny contrast between the speech and the reality, and then the reaction from the gunfights says a lot about these men's spirit. The opening sets the tone: this is a film set in a world where men have ceased to prove their value and woman carries the cross. The only seemingly positive male character is Johnny; the son who just lost his arm in a fight yet seems to hide a more painful wound. Another man is courting Mary, the daughter, but she's in love with a young solicitor named Bentham and he's got good news for the Boyles.The second act deals with the inheritance, a cousin leaves his fortune to Boyle whose reflex is to immediately snub his buddy, if money can't buy love, it can't bring much dignity. The Boyles start buying fancy furniture, show off their fortune, enjoys the music from their gramophone and while a funeral procession pass near their house, even Juno can't empathize with a mother mourning her son, also killed in the war. It says a lot about the way wealth conditions our behavior and clouds our empathy. The Boyles discuss with Bentham matters of religion, wondering what can exactly fascinate people in this. For all the Catholic faith we supposed Irish people are impregnated with, here is an Irish playwright giving us a glimpse of how malleable their faith are, like everyone's.Even while recalling his pasts on the boat, Boyle remembers the question he used to ask himself "what brings the stars?" God doesn't strike as an obvious answer, a loser is likely to lose his faith … and loses it more when luck strikes. Naturally, the third act will change everything, a mistake from Bentham will prevent them from getting the money, out of shame, he'll leave Mary pregnant, as for Johnny, he'll be taken away for reasons explaining his torment all through the film. Boyle is treated like dirt by the tailor and the female neighbor, both come to take the stuff he bought by credit, and when he goes to buy his last drink with Joxer, as if nothing happened, only Juno stays with Mary, instead of one father, she'll have two mothers, and this is one of the greatest quotes I've ever heard in a film.The film ends on the poignant eulogy of faith, in an empty room emphasizing the isolation of men when adversity becomes too hard to handle, and this is the irony of faith, too much troubles make us question it, and sometimes, we're so desperate, we need something to hook on, not to drown in an ocean of desperateness. Mary doesn't believe in God, but Juno has a good answer "what can God do with men's stupidity?" one might think if God is so powerful, he should prevent it, but even Einstein had a few wise words about the unlimited aspect of men's stupidity."Juno and the Paycock" was a revelation to me, a real slap in the face. It has nothing to do with Hitch' canon yet the fact that it is associated with Hitchcock's name is the film's ironic blessing because this is exactly why most movie buffs will be curious enough to discover one of 'Hitchcock's earlier films, so maybe apart from Irish or British people, thanks to Hitchcock, the work of Sean O'Casey will never totally sink into oblivion.

TheLittleSongbird I do say this with a heavy heart, and I love Hitchcock and a vast majority of his films and consider him my all-time favourite director. He has directed many masterpieces among of which are the likes of Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window and Rebecca, and a handful of very good films. But that is not to say that he hasn't had any disappointments, I didn't care for Jamaica Inn, Under Capricorn, Topaz and The Paradine Case very much. Seeing Juno and the Paycock for the first time, as a Hitchcock completest and to see whether it was as bad as I'd heard, unfortunately this was another film of his I didn't care for. It is not quite as bad as I'd heard(it is certainly not bad enough for me to call it one of the worst films I've ever seen) but I do think the complaints are legitimate, though I can see why people will like it too. What was the best thing about it? For me, it was the acting, sure it was theatrical, but in a good way. Sara Allgood's performance is the best thing about Juno and the Paycock, commanding and formidable, and she is supported well by a wonderfully outlandish Sydney Morgan and a suitably gruff Edward Chapman. Barry Fitzgerald is great to see, and he's also very good. In my opinion though, Juno and the Paycock did have a lot of faults, putting that it's badly transferred aside. I was disappointed in Hitchcock's direction here, apparently he was an admirer of the source material(a stage play by Sean O'Casey) but that didn't come across. Instead it seemed as though he had no idea how to direct it, that he didn't genuinely have his heart in it and there is so little of his distinctive style if any at all that like Jamaica Inn and Under Capricorn it didn't feel like a Hitchcock film. It is a very scrappily made film, of Hitch's films Juno and the Paycock is the least accomplished visually that I've seen, the cinematography and editing lacks care and look as though they were done in a rush while the set(s) offer nothing interesting. The music comes across as shrill and obtrusive, while there is far too much talk in the dialogue to the extent that the drama is brought to a screeching halt at times and not enough of the rich characterisations of the source material and the blend of wit and tragedy is nowhere near sharp, powerful or moving enough. The story may be faithful to the play but is bogged down by turgid pacing(the hour-and-a-half duration seems twice as long here, I have nothing against slow-paced films, some of my all-time favourites are so, but not in a long time have I been this bored stiff from a film), scenes that go on for too long and go at a snail's pace and very stagy and somewhat calcified drama/action that what made the play so good is lost in translation. To conclude, very disappointing even for an early effort, especially when such a great director was involved. 4/10 Bethany Cox

75groucho Gee, maybe that's not fair. Maybe it's just that the Irish have a better heritage of articulating hard times. "Juno and The Paycock" is the epitome of tales of woe and suffering from the Irish urban poor during The Troubles of the early 20th century. The family has all the stereotypical travails: Joblessness due to alcoholism, joblessness due to labor union strikes, involvement with the Republican Army, and all these problems fall across the shoulders of the long-suffering mother, Juno.If such a thing can be imagined, it gets worse. The family believes they will fall into some money, so they (foolishly) run up debts. This begins the 'comic' part of the film's tragi-comedy structure. When hopes prove to be false the family is devastated.A relentlessly downbeat story that sees an interlude of clearly false hopes followed by a tragic ending, is considered a chestnut of the Irish playwright Sean O'Casey. For viewers, anyone who can't understand the thick Irish brogues on the equipment used in an early talkie will have no chance to understand the dialogue. Worst of all the nature of the story really doesn't suit the talents of even a young Alfred Hitchcock. Even by that point in his career, he had begun to make compelling suspense pictures and this film is not in his wheelhouse. Even taking exception for budget and circumstances that would have obligated him to take on this film as an early sound project, "Juno and The Paycock" does little to distinguish the work of Sean O'Casey and even less for Hitchcock. It should be avoided, even by Hitchcock completists.

Chuck Rothman (crothman) While competently directed, the movie is too obviously a photographed stage play (thought Hitchcock tried to open it up). It's nothing like his usual type of film, either; the one bit of suspense as a twist is obvious from the beginning (the actor overacts too obviously). Other plot twists are obvious quite early.Still, it has its moments. There's some nice comedy and characterization. If you're a Hitchcock completist, it's worth looking at to see how he handles a type of material he didn't seem attuned with. If not, you may find uninteresting.(Not a criticism of the film, but the Irish accents can make it hard to make out some of the dialog.)