If this film had not been directed by Alfred Hitchcock, no one would remember it or even want to remember it! It is obvious that this film was just a chance for the director to work his craft until he ultimately made a dandy film a year later (THE LODGER). You will also not see very much of the "Hitchcock style" in this film, as the movie is not a suspense film or mystery and in places, his quality as a director was very suspect. It is just amazing how quickly he went from this sorry film to great films.
When I say badly directed, I know some die-hard fans will no doubt have an apoplexy. I have long ago noticed that die-hard fans rarely can allow criticism of their idols, so I know I'll have a few people rate this review as "not helpful", but it simply was botched by him in places. In particular, the beginning of the film is a histrionic mess! While it is untrue that MOST silent films are overacted and have exaggerated action (this is really only something you see in very, very early films), this film looks like a throwback to bygone days during the confrontation between the evil drunken husband and the painter. Such overacting and hysterics are pretty much laughable. I also loved how the husband did such a rotten job "hitting" the other man with his cane--he pulled the blows so obviously that it just looked like it came from a high school play! Well, I must admit that the rest of the film DID feature better acting and it seemed that if Hitchcock made this movie linearly (from start to finish), then you can see how his direction improved as the film unfolded. But, unfortunately, the script is so preachy and obvious that it hardly seems worth watching. About the only positive that I really liked was the very end--the lack of a happy or clichéd ending actually helped make the movie a little more palatable. Still, all-in-all, a pretty forgettable and unimpressive film in almost every aspect.
When I say badly directed, I know some die-hard fans will no doubt have an apoplexy. I have long ago noticed that die-hard fans rarely can allow criticism of their idols, so I know I'll have a few people rate this review as "not helpful", but it simply was botched by him in places. In particular, the beginning of the film is a histrionic mess! While it is untrue that MOST silent films are overacted and have exaggerated action (this is really only something you see in very, very early films), this film looks like a throwback to bygone days during the confrontation between the evil drunken husband and the painter. Such overacting and hysterics are pretty much laughable. I also loved how the husband did such a rotten job "hitting" the other man with his cane--he pulled the blows so obviously that it just looked like it came from a high school play! Well, I must admit that the rest of the film DID feature better acting and it seemed that if Hitchcock made this movie linearly (from start to finish), then you can see how his direction improved as the film unfolded. But, unfortunately, the script is so preachy and obvious that it hardly seems worth watching. About the only positive that I really liked was the very end--the lack of a happy or clichéd ending actually helped make the movie a little more palatable. Still, all-in-all, a pretty forgettable and unimpressive film in almost every aspect.