StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

blanche-2 Two things make Murder! interesting before one even sees it - it's early Hitchcock and the film is 87 years old!It's not your typical Hitchcock story. A famous actor (Herbert Marshall) sits on a jury that convicts a young actress, Diana (Norah Baring) of murder, but he's haunted by the verdict. He had an encounter with this woman some time before and suggested she gain experience by "working in the provinces." He now feels slightly responsible, as she is accused of murdering a young female costar.Enlisting the help of a married couple in the company, he sets out to find out what really happened.Marshall is young and attractive, and Esme Percy as Handel Fane is very memorable. A distinguished stage actor, he actually studied with Sarah Bernhardt, and roles were written for him by Bernard Shaw. His style and look are unusual.This was filmed in a precise manner - the camera focusing on doorways, going along the floor where the murder took place and showing the bloody poker.The climax of the film is pure Hitchcock and astounding. Well worth sitting through this early movie. Hitchcock always is.

mlink-36-9815 The print used by studio canal in their box set with a death mask of Hitchcock - has dropouts in which the screen goes BLACK. I mean come on its 2017. ...................political correctness ..... no killer can be gay...or has black blood.......... or whatever?.......... its an old movie LEAVE IT ALONE!!! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right after Handell Fane departs for good a SCENE IS CUT. When the body is brought by on a stretcher a man says "Neck Broken" then a lot of people milling about ......... a man in charge gives an envelope to Sir John written by the dead man. Says: "I don't know if this means anything..." all this is CUT. all you see is Sir John reading the contents of the letter to Markham. ITS NOT THEIR JOB to reedit movies. Especially ones from box sets with the mans death mask. Its a tribute! Don't tribute the man by trashing his work. i bought the set for one movie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Way back in time - go back .... back to the days when the vcr was first invented... in 1979 Alfred Hitchcock Died. On PBS across the United States was a showing of several of his films from Archival Prints in BFI. by special arrangement with PBS: Secret Agent 1936, Champagne 1928 and MURDER 1930. I recorded these and watched them dozens of times. They were in perfect condition NOT AT ALL like the bastardized version of MURDER put out by Studio-Canal. There is a scene where they go from Sir John's Office lunch to Markham's Room in which the film is "Burnt"! I assure you on that 1979 showing the film was not burnt. I still have SECRET AGENT on tape from 1979. It has Never been on TV since then. I lost Champagne & Murder unfortunately moving around. Studio-Canal needs to get the BFI Print which is complete and perfect. I DO NOT CARE what the reason is to show a burnt movie but by 2017 it should be replaced. The killer is queer or No he's not queer he just wears women's clothes - No he wears Police Costumes - No he's got black blood. - No he's just a normal killer who don't want to get caught and will wear any disguise. He could have 6 girlfriends - He's a killer So no reason to burn a film. Stop Now and try to buy a DVD of MURDER without the burnt scene. Go ahead! Now do it!

Leofwine_draca The second earlier Hitchcock film I've watched, and like SECRET AGENT, I found this one very dated. The problem lies in the pacing alone; at nearly two hours, this is a slow and dragged-out movie which could have done with an hour lopping off so that it moved at a fair old whack. As it stands, especially during the middle part of the film everything feels dragged out endlessly.Not that this is a bad film, because it isn't. I don't think Hitchcock ever directed a truly bad film. The plot comes across like TWELVE ANGRY MEN, although of course it was made decades before that classic. Aristocratic leading man Herbert Marshall (later the bad guy in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT) is one member of a jury who finds a young woman guilty of murder after a body is found at her feet with the murder weapon grasped in her hand. Of course, as is invariably the case with these murder mysteries, nothing is as simple as it seems and Herbert begins a private investigation into the crime.The investigation is where this film gets bogged down after an arresting opening. However, things pick up for the climax, which is stark, stylish, and suitably horrific - a classic Hitchcock ending. Watch out for the scene with Marshall shaving in the mirror, the first example of a voice-over narration representing an internal monologue in cinema. Marshall is great and the supporting cast are fine, and the theatrical backdrop allows for some interesting characterisation with cross-dressing and the like going on. But that pace makes MURDER! one of Hitch's lesser efforts.

MisterWhiplash It's easy to forget that when synchronized sound was first introduced into world cinema, it changed so much and yet for a short period of time made things difficult for filmmakers in ways they couldn't have perceived. Whereas in the silent era filmmakers had the freedom to move their cameras any which way they pleased (and Hitchcock was one of those, as seen in his first classic, The Lodger, with shots such as taken from under a glass floor to see a man walking by), in those first years of sound filmmakers had to be at the whim of the microphone that recorded right there in the studio or in close proximity - quickly, there would be innovations to record sound better, location-wise, but it was slow - and thus we have a picture like MURDER! in that mold.One will likely come to see Hitchcock's Murder! after devouring many of his other films, some may even have that name in the title (Dial M for example), so it may come as a shock that we don't really get to see a murder take place. Oh, there is a dead body, and we see that pretty early on as the "Bobbys" and other on-lookers see a woman has been killed in a house. This is actually more of a 'whodunit', which the director did really on occasion actually - the norm was really about the 'Wrong Man/Woman' situation - and the first act, and sort of what follows, is closer to that of 12 Angry Men: a jury is practically unanimous for the guilt of murder for poor Diana Baring (Norah Baring, curious they have the same last name, she's fine by the way if under-used). All, except that is, for Sir John (Herbert Marshall, the best actor in this cast with maybe exception one other), who sees too many questions and reasonable doubt.But Ms Baring is convicted as Sir John can't muster enough defense, and yet it eats away at him; here we get to see and hear cinema's first first-person narration. It's actually not that bad in terms of the words, though, again, it has dated ridiculously due to the fact that they had to have his audio recorded voice going on stage, along with an accompanied orchestra, so the delivery is creaky as hell. What we get from then on, as Ms Baring awaits her death sentence, is Sir John tracing down more of the facts that the police seem to have just let pass - forensics wasn't really that much of a commonality, one assumes, in 1930 England - and it leads all the way to another actor, currently working in the circus, played by Esme Percy in his screen debut.Percy doesn't have much screen-time, but what he does have - in the last 25 minutes or so of the film - makes things pick up and become really interesting. It should be said that Murder! may be a disappointment for those looking for more chock-a-block Hitchcock razzle-dazzle with his camera. He does try to inject some movement here and there, to be sure, and it's really worth your while to check out the full director's cut if possible (Amazon video has the 104 minute version, other prints vary), and sometimes it's just in quick cuts like in the jury-room scenes, or in how a close-up of a clock or the timing of a noose being put together in Baring's cell another.Thankfully, along with Percy's eerie, kind of over-the-top but winning performance, and Hitchcock's direction in this meeting between this actor and this writer Sir John (who has a scenario based on the Baring case, albeit with one page "missing" as to the details after a certain point, dot-dot-dot), Murder! has a smashing third act and climax. it suddenly becomes apparent that the movie's strength is in looking at the difference between the theatricality of the stage (and the circus) and real life, which is full of pressure to conform and dreary "facts" without any imagination to look deeper and further.When one thinks about it, a lot of this movie may be kind of brilliant. But it takes some time to get there, and there's stretches of the film that drag, such as a scene with Sir John waking up in the morning, surrounded by, um, kids and a crying baby and a "pussy" cat, and an older woman delivering a LOT of exposition in the kind of English that needs subtitles. Some of the flaws can't be helped due to stone-age cinematic techniques, while others are just more due to a young filmmaker still trying to find his footing into what he "does". Still, Murder! is worth a watch if you dig this man's work, and there's glimpses (sometimes more) into what would become his signature moves.