X
- 1941
- Approved
- RKO Radio Pictures
- 1 h 39 m
- 1941
- Approved
- RKO Radio Pictures
- 1 h 39 m
Summary Handsome, charming, well-liked Johnnie Aysgarth (Cary Grant) is a worthless cheat, so when he marries Lina McLaidlaw (Joan Fontaine), the naïve daughter of a wealthy retired general (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), everyone except Lina believes Johnnie is only after his wife's inheritance. But her love changes to suspicion after she discovers tha...
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
- 1941
- Approved
- RKO Radio Pictures
- 1 h 39 m
- 1941
- Approved
- RKO Radio Pictures
- 1 h 39 m
Suspicion
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
83
7.9
Where to Watch
Summary Handsome, charming, well-liked Johnnie Aysgarth (Cary Grant) is a worthless cheat, so when he marries Lina McLaidlaw (Joan Fontaine), the naïve daughter of a wealthy retired general (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), everyone except Lina believes Johnnie is only after his wife's inheritance. But her love changes to suspicion after she discovers tha...
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 4 Critic Reviews
83
100% Positive
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
0% Mixed
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 4 Critic Reviews
83
100% Positive
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
0% Mixed
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
Everyone concedes that this 1941 Hitchcock film is a failure, yet it displays so much artistic seriousness that I find its failure utterly mysterious—especially since the often criticized ending (imposed on Hitchcock by the studio) makes perfect sense to me.
Alfred Hitchcock’s trademarked cinematic development of suspenseful drama, through mental emotions of the story principals, is vividly displayed in Suspicion, a class production [from the novel Before the Fact by Francis Iles] provided with excellence in direction, acting and mounting.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 28 User Ratings
7.9
86% Positive
24 Ratings
24 Ratings
14% Mixed
4 Ratings
4 Ratings
0% Negative
0 Ratings
0 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 28 User Ratings
7.9
86% Positive
24 Ratings
24 Ratings
14% Mixed
4 Ratings
4 Ratings
0% Negative
0 Ratings
0 Ratings
One of the best movie in history of cinema. A charming man like Cary with an angel face woman like Joan.
Report
A lot of people will say I'm crazy but I hated the ending.
Hitchcok was a master bulding tension and handling it up and this movie shows it, all the way but the last 20 minutes allow only two outcomes and it was kind of predictable and at the same time a little dissapointing not because it was bad it's because it dissipates the mistery entirely and it becomes too idyllic. Nevertheless, it was a really good film.
Report
Suspicion is so grimly powerful that its Hollywood-style happy ending has infuriated audiences for years.
One must remark that the ending is not up to Mr. Hitchcock's usual style, and the general atmosphere of the picture is far less genuine than he previously has wrought. But still he has managed to bring through a tense and exciting tale, a psychological thriller which is packed with lively suspense and a picture that entertains you from beginning to—well, almost the end.
Honestly, three-quarters into this movie, I had conceded that this one may just be a solid misfire from Alfred Hitchcock. It had suspense, but seemed to be taking too long to get to the point. Yes, Johnnie (Cary Grant) was creepy and a liar, but I needed a pay-off. My mind began to wander and it seemed like I had finally found a Hitchcock film that had missed the mark. However, even in this mixed state of mind, the film was admittedly incredibly suspenseful and filled with tension as you began to wonder, along with Lina (Joan Fontaine), if her husband Johnnie was really a **** murderer. What won me over was the third act. It is brilliant. Visceral, edge-of-your-seat entertainment, the third act must rank among the very best final acts of a film in Hitchcock's career. That said, in hindsight, the first and second acts are also often terrific in setting up the clues to the "case" and hinting at the truth.
Deceitful and untrustworthy, Johnnie falls quickly into love with the rich Lina. Unbeknownst to Lina, Johnnie is a gambler, heavily in debt, and broke. Hitchcock immediately sets up the film to make Lina and the audience suspicious, especially after her father dies and Johnnie loses his job for stealing, but fails to tell Lina. He is no good and a thief, but is he a murderer? Lina seems unsure, but her paranoia and suspicion continue to spiral out of control. As a result, though it was lost on me initially, the audience's instincts also spike out of control. Every clue, every move, every action is **** in tension in the final act of the film. Sick from nerves, Lina is bed ridden. Johnnie bringing her milk, after learning of an undetectable and pain free poison found in every home, is filled with suspense. Hitchcock is the "master of suspense" for good reason and he shows it here in this film. As she looks at the glass after Johnnie put it down, it makes the audience want to get up and scream, "Do not touch that milk, it is poisoned!" When films make the audience feel such emotions, you can always tell just how effective its thrills and suspense are.
Cary Grant truly lives up to the billing as well, as his every move and look instills trepidation and fear. He seems like a snake and acts like one throughout the film. When he tries to convince Lina that he loves her and would never hurt her, it never feels genuine. It is almost as if he is convincing himself as well as his wife. His slimy, grimy, and despicable behavior leads to the belief that he is untrustworthy and, even worse, his lack of wealth and seedy nature easily instills the belief that he would kill Lina to get her money. As such, the film is filled with dread and suspense as we wait to see the lengths that he will go to in order to get out of the financial hole. As his wife, Joan Fontaine is terrific. She defines paranoia and fear as she quickly puts together the pieces of the puzzle that merely reinforce her mistrust of her husband. From dead friends, lies, cover-ups, theft, and more, her evidence is piling up. Fontaine perfectly captures this petrified wife character who solemnly realizes that she does not know her husband as well as she thought, as she has no idea if he could kill her.
The terrific final act is truly the cherry on top of this film, however. While the first and second acts are a mix of portions that do not work and Hitchcock firing on all cylinders, the final act truly saves it all. As they drive on an open road by a cliff, the tension and suspense of the moment is honestly overwhelming and leaves you clutching the seat to see what will happen next. It is here where the film's billing as a psychological thriller really pays off as the mental build-up in conjunction with that finale is incredible. This is a film that really messes with your mind and is honestly inconclusive. Though the ending seems to paint one picture, an argument for the exact opposite could be equally true. Johnnie is not a man who is easy to pin down, so his true nature is eternally elusive, so whether he is capable of truly killing or not.
Laced with tension and suspense, Suspicion is a tremendous earlier work in Hitchcock's filmography. While its first and second act are not as effective in the moment, they become great thanks to a phenomenal finale that leaves you guessing. As is typical, constant references to murder and the word itself are littered throughout and it is always compelling to see how Hitchcock keeps you wondering even if it is so apparent that murder plays a key role in this story. But, for him, the build-up and the mystery is key, just as it is here in Suspicion.
Report
In todays world, it seems quite a cliched film but of course this film is quite old. I like that the female character is relatively quick to sense that something is wrong and stands up for herself somewhat, although I got really quite annoyed at her new husband repeatedly referring to her as 'monkey face', which I assume to be some kind of term of endearment. The husbands acquaintances (including a chap referred to as 'beaky') seemed somewhat suspcious and I'd say this film reflects the moral standards of the time it's set in. Its somewhat tense and I found it an interesting watch, not least how the characters develop, with the husband changing his demeanour at times. The film features pretty good performances and its an Alfred Hitchcock film, so if your a fan of his work then yes, I'd recommend it, although the ending is a little unsatisfactory perhaps.
Report
Above average, but not great Hitchcock. I think Joan Fontaine was extraordinary in this role. She so deserved to win the Oscar. Cary Grant plays a super jerk, a first class heel, and Hitchcock plays off that nastiness to a satisfying degree. Except for the slap in the face studio imposed ending, this movie's effectiveness still holds up.
Report
This is not one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films... although he is highly regarded and has all the merit for it, he made several films that would not stand out nor would we realize they were his if his name did not appear on the screen. I speak at least of us, the laity, who do not study his work and technique in depth.
Inspired by a book, this film has suspense and a story with outlines of impending crime: a rich girl who marries against her parents 'will and only later realizes that she married a compulsive gambler who may be interested in her parents' money. As the film unfolds, she fears for her life. It looks good, it looks like the kind of movies the director likes to make ... but while watching it I found everything so warm that I was surprised by it. And the end? It is undoubtedly one of the worst in Hitchcock's films, as it is tremendously anti-climatic.
The cast is led by Cary Grant (in his first collaboration with Hitchcock) and Joan Fontaine. The way the film was conceived accentuates the professional work of the actors and both were very good, but in general it is a film that goes unnoticed in the filmography of both artists. Fontaine is graceful, she has a sweet vulnerability that makes her nice, but that is all and it is hard to believe that she won an Oscar for Best Actress here. Grant is very good, and shows a certain rudeness, misogyny and lack of consideration for his wife that make him worthy of distrust and even dislike. I personally hated his character and the way he made decisions in spite of what his wife might want and without talking to her. I also think that there was a lack of chemistry between Grant and Fontaine. It seems that they never got along and that Grant couldn't stand the good relationship between Fontaine and Hitchcock. In the secondary cast Nigel Bruce stands out.
At a technical level the film is impeccable, as is usual in Hitchcock's films. Very well filmed, with excellent photography and a very skillful use of black and white and contrast, it was very well edited and the editing work is very good, having been closely supervised by the director. Good scenarios, costumes and a soundtrack complement the production values of this film, which, despite being good, did not amaze or absorb me like others by the same director.
Report
Awards
Academy Awards, USA
• 1 Win & 3 Nominations
New York Film Critics Circle Awards
• 1 Win & 1 Nomination
Kinema Junpo Awards
• 1 Win & 1 Nomination
