Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

kkonrad-29861 Hitchcock later himself has refer to this particular film as 'photographs of people talking'. Although there are couple of nice moments, but overall 'Juno and the Paycock' is too static and somewhat uneven in tone. Lighthearted comedy changes into dark tragedy and then cheesy melodrama too suddenly. Plus, the film is simply boring. I don't mind talky films, and I really enjoy good dialogue that was occasionally present in this movie (He can't climb a ladder but he can skip into a bar.), but there were too many (and too long) empty pauses between.You may want to watch 'Juno and the Paycock' only if you need to see all the Hitchcock's movies, or if you are interested how boring movie one of the most interesting directors managed to turn out.

Rainey Dawn The film is about as dry as stale bread. It does hold my interest to a degree but it's not the greatest film nor the worst film that Hitchcock has made (in my opinion). From what I've read, not even Alfred wanted liked this film - he didn't even want to make it but he did.It's not an unwatchable film but it is not a good movie. It's more of an interest to Hitchcock fans and maybe some film students - that's about it. There might be another small crowd interested in this one, those that are interested in all things Irish.IDK what this film is missing really, maybe a bit more comedy to make it "spicy" or entertaining. A bit quicker pace couldn't hurt either.Not bad but not good - It's in the middle ground for me.Note: IMDb has this film listed as 1929 while most other sources have this film listed as 1930. 3/10

TheLittleSongbird I do say this with a heavy heart, and I love Hitchcock and a vast majority of his films and consider him my all-time favourite director. He has directed many masterpieces among of which are the likes of Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window and Rebecca, and a handful of very good films. But that is not to say that he hasn't had any disappointments, I didn't care for Jamaica Inn, Under Capricorn, Topaz and The Paradine Case very much. Seeing Juno and the Paycock for the first time, as a Hitchcock completest and to see whether it was as bad as I'd heard, unfortunately this was another film of his I didn't care for. It is not quite as bad as I'd heard(it is certainly not bad enough for me to call it one of the worst films I've ever seen) but I do think the complaints are legitimate, though I can see why people will like it too. What was the best thing about it? For me, it was the acting, sure it was theatrical, but in a good way. Sara Allgood's performance is the best thing about Juno and the Paycock, commanding and formidable, and she is supported well by a wonderfully outlandish Sydney Morgan and a suitably gruff Edward Chapman. Barry Fitzgerald is great to see, and he's also very good. In my opinion though, Juno and the Paycock did have a lot of faults, putting that it's badly transferred aside. I was disappointed in Hitchcock's direction here, apparently he was an admirer of the source material(a stage play by Sean O'Casey) but that didn't come across. Instead it seemed as though he had no idea how to direct it, that he didn't genuinely have his heart in it and there is so little of his distinctive style if any at all that like Jamaica Inn and Under Capricorn it didn't feel like a Hitchcock film. It is a very scrappily made film, of Hitch's films Juno and the Paycock is the least accomplished visually that I've seen, the cinematography and editing lacks care and look as though they were done in a rush while the set(s) offer nothing interesting. The music comes across as shrill and obtrusive, while there is far too much talk in the dialogue to the extent that the drama is brought to a screeching halt at times and not enough of the rich characterisations of the source material and the blend of wit and tragedy is nowhere near sharp, powerful or moving enough. The story may be faithful to the play but is bogged down by turgid pacing(the hour-and-a-half duration seems twice as long here, I have nothing against slow-paced films, some of my all-time favourites are so, but not in a long time have I been this bored stiff from a film), scenes that go on for too long and go at a snail's pace and very stagy and somewhat calcified drama/action that what made the play so good is lost in translation. To conclude, very disappointing even for an early effort, especially when such a great director was involved. 4/10 Bethany Cox

MartinHafer Before I begin the review, I would like to point out that watching this film isn't easy--particularly for people aren't used to the strong accents. That's because in addition to struggling to understand them, it gets worse because the sound is so bad AND there are no closed captions. I hope there is a better and cleaned up version out there, but I doubt it. My copy is from a cheap box set of Hitchcock's films, but whenever I have seen this film on DVD, it's been in similar sets--where captions and film preservation aren't particularly important.As for the film, like almost all of Hitchcock's films before 1934, most of his films defy a specific genre. While he did THE LODGER, most of his silent and early sound films have nothing to do with suspense or mystery. So the fact that JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK might seem nothing like a Hitchcock film is simply because there was no "Hitchcock Style" yet.JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK is a look at an Irish family and their rather ordinary and stereotypical lives. The husband, the Captain, isn't a captain at all but a lazy drinker who avoids work at all costs. The wife, Juno (Sara Algood), is a long-suffering woman who tries to make good with what they've got--which isn't much. The first 30 minutes of the film features no tangible plot--just the Captain talking and talking and talking with various friends and then his wife. This is all pretty dull. Later, the couple learn that they've come into an inheritance and their lives are thrown into a tizzy. They begin having all kinds of ideas about living high off the hog, only by the end of the film to find out that it's all for naught. Sadly, there really isn't more to the film than this.I think how good this film is to the viewer probably depends a lot on your perspective. I am sure an Irish person or someone with Irish heritage would look at this a lot different than me, an American without a drop of "green" blood. To me, it's all just a long and dull talk-fest with little to recommend it. Hitchcock has obviously worked hard to create such vivid characterizations here, but don't expect THE QUIET MAN or the like.