DipitySkillful
an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.
Usamah Harvey
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
Brennan Camacho
Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.
pietclausen
Most of Hitchcock's movies are entertaining, tense and clever. I too had never seen Rope, until now. This one doesn't fit the bill and is most unsatisfactory. There is no plot, only a rambling of talking and most boring to watch.All I can say at the end: 'Well at least I've seen it', and forget that it spoiled my evening.
alexanderdavies-99382
Reviews regarding Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece of "Rope," tended to be mixed when the film came out on release in 1948. Critics complained that "Rope" was in rather poor taste due to the subject matter. These days, the film is rightly regarded as one of Hitchcock's more original. It is a film that deals with the act of committing a murder for its own sake and how the people responsible decide who should live and who shouldn't. The people in question - including the victim - are three students who all know each other. The two killers are a gay couple who plot to kill their fellow student, on account of their supposed superiority over him. They commit their heinous act with no conscience and with no guilt. The plot concerns the attempts of the killers (John Dall and Farley Granger) to elude capture and to avoid any kind of suspicion falling upon them. After hiding the body in their apartment - where the killing takes place - they hold a dinner party for a few friends and acquaintances. Out of the two, Dall is the more conceited and arrogant. He puts on airs of his feeling superior and causing an atmosphere of tension with the girlfriend of the victim during the party. Granger is a lot more nervous and distracted by what has just occurred. You feel he will be the one who will give the game away. Hitchcock is carefully and methodically plotting the downfall of the killers from the film's opening scene. It is the appearance of James Stewart who plays the lecturer to the killers and the victim, that the film begins to change. From his first appearance, Stewart suspects that not all is what it appears to be. He senses bad vibes the moment he sees the two murderers. He begins to probe them in a subtle manner. The subject of homicide is brought into the discussion, purely on a theoretical basis or so it would appear. With such a conversation, Farley Granger's unease becomes more apparent and John Dall maintains his pomposity for the time being. The suspense builds to breaking point after nearly all the guests have left the apartment. James Stewart returns on the pretense of having left his hat behind. Now it is just the three actors for about the last 10 minutes or so and it is highly memorable. At this stage, both killers are at a low ebb, resistance wise. John Dall finally concedes defeat. Being callous right to the end, he expresses his lack of humanity by saying to James Stewart as he points to the hiding place: "Alright, I hope you like what you see." The camera cuts to a close up of the shock and disgust that Stewart feels at the gruesome discovery. The students try to appeal to their lecturer by trying to justify what they have done but it is all in vain. Stewart delivers some excellent dialogue when he denounces the actions of the killers, by explaining that the victim was a decent, sincere, gentle and civilised human being. It is an intense conclusion to a great film. It was hinted quite strongly in an early draft of the script, that the James Stewart character was sexually attracted to the murder victim and that his feelings were not reciprocated in the slightest. If any of that is true, I can't imagine James Stewart agreeing to be in the film as his kind of Republican politics would prevent him from being cast. As such, I believe the script was revised to eliminate any and all homosexual references to Stewart's character. Some critics felt that James Mason might have been a better choice for the pivotal role of the lecturer. I'm not saying Mason wouldn't have been good but I thought James Stewart did a good job. John Dall and Farley Granger did well as the two murderers and Cedric Hardwicke was effective as the victim's father. Hitchcock shot "Rope" in long, single takes and parts of the set were on wheels so as to make the photography more expressive. I feel all this adds to the film's value as a masterclass in filmmaking. I rate "Rope" as being one of Hitchcock's finest.
avik-basu1889
Despite his artistry, his achievements and his legacy, Alfred Hitchcock at a basic level was nothing but a mischievous kid who loved messing with his audience by making them involuntary participants in his films. In 'Rear Window', he managed to tap into the voyeuristic elements of a human psyche and made the audience a voyeur along with the protagonist 'Jeff'. In 'Rope', he manages to make the audience curious and maybe even a bit excited about the prospect of watching a crime go unnoticed and watching murderers remain uncaught. The character of Brandon is nothing but Hitchcock himself. It is stated time and time again, that the murder and the subsequent party in the film was arranged meticulously by Brandon because of the 'thrill' of it, the 'excitement' of it. Hitchcock is doing the same thing with this film from a technical standpoint. The screenplay is adapted from a play and Hitchcock stages the film pretty much like a play. 'Rope' is founded on the gimmick of making the whole film look like a long unbroken shot. Hitchcock is hiding the cuts and is reveling in the excitement of challenging the viewers to find the hidden cuts.'Rope' is also like the cinematic equivalent of 'Rear Window' due to the setting. Both films use the element of claustrophobia. The interiors of the apartment in 'Rope' could easily be one of the rooms/apartments that 'Jeff' was keeping an eye on in 'Rear Window'. There were various sections of the society that were captured in the little rooms and apartments that 'Jeff' was watching, this one could be the room that represents the upper class 'intellectual' section. 'Rope' certainly does make a commentary on the pretentiousness of some members of the rich upper class. Brandon keeps spouting Nietzschean philosophies to justify his right to murder as a 'superior' being. The closed-up, claustrophobic nature of the setting also visually underlines how isolated these people are with the rest of the society completely cut off, something which gets addressed in the final moments.Having said all that, the social commentary is secondary in the narrative. A complaint is made by people that 'Rope' is an example of style over substance and I think it's valid. It pretty much throughout remains a cinematic gimmick, an experiment, more so than anything else. We don't get the dark, multi-layered character studies that we got in 'Vertigo' and 'Psycho'. However I'll be lying if I say I didn't have a blast watching the film. I fully participated in Hitchcock's mischief, his hidden cuts, his careful placement of camera to raise tension, his cheeky visual foreshadowing, etc. It's an experiment of style over substance, but when it's none other than Hitchcock doing the experiment, it becomes fun, enjoyable and something that you have to admire.
Peter Zullmmann
You know the quote about Actors being cattle. Hitchcock corrected saying he never said that actors were cattle what he said was that actors "should be treated" like cattle. Great actors give perfect performances in Hitchcok films. Think of Grant and Bergman in Notorious, Cotten in Shadow Of A Doubt not to mention Anthony Perkins in Psycho. Often the improbabilities of the plot become totally credible by the credibility of the performances. Here, John Dall and Farley Granger act and act to outrageously that it's impossible to believe they can get away with it for more than five minutes. Their characters are impossible to warm up to like it happened with Anthony Perkins in Psycho or with Colin Firth in Apartment Zero, no matter how sickly those characters are you can't help connect with their humanity. Hitchcock in Rope seemed much more taken by the technical wizardry and it is unquestionably fun to watch. So Rope provided me with superficial pleasures and sometimes that's enough.
