PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

thinbeach Uncle Charlie is a killer on the loose, who stays with his sister's family in a peaceful suburban home in an attempt to hide from police. Mystery and intrigue is maintained throughout as we question whether Uncle Charlie is a suspect, while the latter half creates suspense by putting Niece Charlie in danger, as she begins to uncover the truth. The film is masterfully shot - so well in fact, that it seems to have blinded audiences to the plot holes.First, one of the early clues involves the Uncle ripping out a newspaper article regarding the murderers deeds. But he had no need to do that, as the article never tied him to the murders in any way. In fact, only by ripping it out did it become a clue that could be used against him - a cheap narrative tool.Second, Uncle gives Niece a ring with the initials of a deceased engraved on it. This is a guy who has $40k to open a bank account with, do you think he would risk passing on evidence like that instead of simply buying a new ring? Of course not. Third, when the only other suspect in the case is killed, he is labelled the guilty party and case closed. This makes no sense whatsoever. If he was guilty, then Uncle would be innocent. If he wasn't guilty, then Uncle would still be under investigation. There are only two logical paths here and the film takes neither.Fourth, the film keeps hinting at some "special" connection between the two Charlies - they share the same names, and an early coincidence makes Niece wonder if they are telepathic. But this connection runs exactly nowhere and one wonders why it was ever introduced. (The romantic subplot between Niece and Detective is also irrelevant, except to try and provide a happy ending).With all this "doubt" about, it would have at least been nice to have a twist ending (hell, I'm sure they could have made the family friend Herbert the real killer - they could have at least set up a few more suspects!), but alas, it will not surprise you in any way.An interesting aside are the quirky conversations the father and Herbert have about how to execute 'the perfect murder'. In a career dedicated to the idea, Hitch must have had many of these conversations himself, and we see a few fruits of those conversations towards the end of the film. Instead of saving the best til last however, the climax on the train was the least creative of all. The user Jason in these comments said it perfectly, "A good ending involving a villain failing is supposed to happen because of the villain's Achilles's heel. Not a Deus ex Machina!"Although 'Shadow of a Doubt' is not his original story, I'm disappointed to learn Thornton Wilder was one three screenwriters, for his novel 'The Bridge of San Luis Rey' is excellent.

grantss The Newton family of Santa Rosa California receive an unexpected visit from their Uncle Charlie. He lives in Philadelphia and is a bit of a legend in the family, being a wealthy, self-made man. His niece, also named Charlie, is particularly fond of him. However, when he arrives, Uncle Charlie starts to act suspiciously. Soon two surveyors appear at the house and start to ask questions about Uncle Charlie. (Niece) Charlie starts to investigate and discovers that the two men are detectives and Uncle Charlie is a suspect in a nationwide manhunt and murder investigation. However, the closer she gets to the truth, the more her own life is potentially in danger.A reasonably intriguing Alfred Hitchcock crime drama. In typical Hitchcock fashion it unfolds slowly and deliberately, incrementally revealing just enough to keep you watching, while building up to a tense climax.Not among Hitchcock's best though. The build-up is perhaps too slow here. In addition, despite the title, there is not really that much doubt about whether Uncle Charlie is involved in the crimes, so the possibilities with regard to the outcome are limited. The conclusion thus feels a touch inevitable, though there are a few other ways it could have gone (however, none of these would have been as exciting or complete).

lasttimeisaw An average family in Santa Rosa, California, being encroached by a man of vice in this intriguing Hitchcock thriller, a young teenager Charlotte Newton (Wright), aka. Charlie, grumbles about her family's stuck-in-inertia status quo: her father Joseph (Travers) is an ordinary bank clerk, who is only fond of prattling about morbid murder strategy with their neighbor Herbie (Cronyn in his film debut); her mother Emma (Collinge), a tireless housewife who has three children to attend to, Charlie, Ann (Wonacott, a bespectacled bookish kid) and Roger (Bates), the youngest boy.So Charlie is expectant a miracle to happen, to at least bring some excitement, that's when her namesake uncle Charlie (Cotten) from her mother side, announces his visit from New York, where the picture's noir-ish prelude ominously manifests that uncle Charlie is on the run from some unspecified party. Though Charlie claims her intrinsic affinity towards her uncle, gets all hyped-up by an improbable telepathy between them (well, it is just a sheer coincidence), to viewers, her desperation of seizing anything can break the ennui patently overwhelms their real emotional bond. However the plot doesn't pad out their past stories since the narrative steers directly to that suspicion-arousing development right after the first family dinner after uncle Charlie's arrival, his gift to niece Charlie is a ring engraved with other person's initials, a way-too-obvious act of hiding a newspaper article doesn't make much sense in the first place, but the tension has been aptly built, so we are all absorbed to see how young Charlie will step by step edge near the dark secret, which will entirely shatter the shallow idolatry for her worldly uncle and perniciously subject her to consecutive murderous attempts.That is a typical Hitchcockian premise, the fuse is ignited, let's all wait for the explosion with bated breath. But what jars this is the unfortunately outdated persona of our heroine (it is made in 1943, time changes, so is the ethos), young Charlie is an innocuous gal, safely protected from the adult seediness penetrating the society by provinciality and her "average" upbringing, which indeed ricochet to dampen her spirit. During her rude awakening, Charlie is never proactive to be gauged as smart, or intrepid enough to match her rival, the only reason she can narrowly survive all the deathtraps is just because she cannot die, she is the protagonist, a symbol of innocence and purity, which prompts Hitchcock to really jump the shark in the rash ending to dispatch the villain. Throughout the whole process, Charlie hardly does anything effectively admirable, hobbled by her own sentimentality, she has the key evidence in her hand, but it never occurs to her that a sensible act is to give it to the detective Jack Graham (Carey), who is unmistakably besotted with her, even when she is completely convinced that uncle Charlie is a wrongdoer at large.Nevertheless, viewers can tell, Hitchcock is more resolute in pinpointing uncle Charlie's sociopathic reckoning, especially his misogynous rant during the dinner, which is plain execrable, what makes him a more deserving recipient of the fortune than those rich widows? It certainly hurts when no one dares to refute back, it is a missed opportunity for Charlie to speak volumes for herself, pitifully it is not in Hitchcock and co's minds. Moreover, a big chunk of the information about uncle Charlie's crime has been decidedly undisclosed, what is the deal with another suspect? And since the detectives have a picture of uncle Charlie, what happens to the assuming witness who could identify the perpetrator? These blank bullets leave the film a bit less compact as a top-tier Hitchcock production, albeit the sporadically scintillating lustre (magnificent chiaroscuro galore) manufactured by the technique department.

Andres Cardenas In my 72 years of age, which happens to be the same time since this picture was released(1943), I thought I had seen all of this Master of suspense movies, but I was delighted to discover this one. What I love about this film, is how he plays with all different kind of emotions. The beginning of the film is kind of creepy. The following scenes, hint of what type of Person Uncle Charlie is. How he travels in the train to Santa Rosa, and gets off the train, it is a basic indication of this. The movie has moments to laugh, to be serious and meditate about what the actors say, and shows true emotions of the different members and friends of the family. Even when many of us would suspect the outcome of this plot, the real suspense is to know how this would happen. One of the last scenes where Little Charlie and her brother and sister go out to say good bye to their Uncle, is very obvious that something unexpected will happen, but again, the mystery is: What will happen? Great Movie. I agree with Hitchcock that this is his best one.