Wordiezett So much average

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

kkonrad-29861 'Murder!' is much thrilling and better movie than its current (2018) score might imply, although bit meandering and uneven in pacing the story is still interesting and well though out. The opening scene where camera movies along the street and people open their windows to the noise is pure example of genius director at work. The courtroom scene and the one after that where the jury argues over the verdict is wonderfully suspenseful. With the jury scene Hitchcock also plays wonderful trick how people with different opinions and understandings are sometimes simply bullied to agree with the great majority without even listening their arguments. The middle part of the film where the main character tries to solve the murder, although offering some humorous moments might seem bit dull to some, but shortly before the great reveal, the film picks up the pace and thrills when the main character starts his cat and mouse game with the supposed killer. And then the thrilling ending.Definitely worthwhile early Hitchcock picture.

clanciai This early Hitchcock feature is full of innovations typical of Hitchcock in his early days of the talkies, which were sometimes wildly experimental, like here. At the same time it's his slowest film, you have to be patient with some trying scenes, but the main asset of the film is the very shrewd story. Two actresses, who have been quarrelling rivals, meet to make peace, which meeting ends with one of them being found dead, battered to death by a poker lying beside her, while the other actress sits paralysed and can't remember anything. She is brought to trial, of course, and the jury seems to take it for granted that she must be guilty, there is no other explanation, while Herbert Marshall is the last jury member to be persuaded to agree on the verdict, which he afterwards regrets, he continues brooding on the issue, and then comes the great shaving scene, which is central in the film. He shaves while there is his monologue, and as the radio playing Wagner's Tristan overture reaches an emotional peak, the clue to the mystery dawns upon him, and he starts his own investigation together with another actor of the theatre.There are many interesting scenes, for instance when the police question the actors during am om-going theatre performance, the famous jury session, striking details such as the loose teeth, and the famous climax, where Hitchcock proves himself fully fledged.The music plays an important part here, especially the circus orchestra sharpens your attention, but the ingenious plot is the main thing. Pardon the slow motion, but it's still definitely Hitchcock.

alexanderdavies-99382 "Murder" from 1930 is a rare film from Alfred Hitchcock in that the plot is a "whodunit." I can't recall many other films where the director would use the same kind of narrative. It works quite well on the whole but the pace could have been better and a running time of 90 minutes or less would have helped also. The explanation given at the end of the film for the murder, is rather unexpected and quite daring for those more Conservative times. It changes the complexion of the whole story. The killing of a theatre actress at the beginning, leads to the arrest and trial of a woman who's a member of the same acting company. Whilst the jury members debate who whether the woman is guilty or not, Herbert Marshall as one of the jurors, initiates his own investigation. With the assistance of Edward Chapman (later in some of the Norman Wisdom comedies), they both uncover a good deal of information that casts some doubt as to the suspect's guilt. There are many great Hitchcock moments and it's always interesting to follow Herbert Marshall's efforts in obtaining the truth. There is an interesting scene during when Marshall is having a shave. As he gazes into his mirror in a somewhat melancholic state of mind, his thoughts about the case are reflected in a separate voice-over which was recorded by the actor. An effective scene. In spite of the over-length, "Murder" is still a pretty darn good film.

MisterWhiplash It's easy to forget that when synchronized sound was first introduced into world cinema, it changed so much and yet for a short period of time made things difficult for filmmakers in ways they couldn't have perceived. Whereas in the silent era filmmakers had the freedom to move their cameras any which way they pleased (and Hitchcock was one of those, as seen in his first classic, The Lodger, with shots such as taken from under a glass floor to see a man walking by), in those first years of sound filmmakers had to be at the whim of the microphone that recorded right there in the studio or in close proximity - quickly, there would be innovations to record sound better, location-wise, but it was slow - and thus we have a picture like MURDER! in that mold.One will likely come to see Hitchcock's Murder! after devouring many of his other films, some may even have that name in the title (Dial M for example), so it may come as a shock that we don't really get to see a murder take place. Oh, there is a dead body, and we see that pretty early on as the "Bobbys" and other on-lookers see a woman has been killed in a house. This is actually more of a 'whodunit', which the director did really on occasion actually - the norm was really about the 'Wrong Man/Woman' situation - and the first act, and sort of what follows, is closer to that of 12 Angry Men: a jury is practically unanimous for the guilt of murder for poor Diana Baring (Norah Baring, curious they have the same last name, she's fine by the way if under-used). All, except that is, for Sir John (Herbert Marshall, the best actor in this cast with maybe exception one other), who sees too many questions and reasonable doubt.But Ms Baring is convicted as Sir John can't muster enough defense, and yet it eats away at him; here we get to see and hear cinema's first first-person narration. It's actually not that bad in terms of the words, though, again, it has dated ridiculously due to the fact that they had to have his audio recorded voice going on stage, along with an accompanied orchestra, so the delivery is creaky as hell. What we get from then on, as Ms Baring awaits her death sentence, is Sir John tracing down more of the facts that the police seem to have just let pass - forensics wasn't really that much of a commonality, one assumes, in 1930 England - and it leads all the way to another actor, currently working in the circus, played by Esme Percy in his screen debut.Percy doesn't have much screen-time, but what he does have - in the last 25 minutes or so of the film - makes things pick up and become really interesting. It should be said that Murder! may be a disappointment for those looking for more chock-a-block Hitchcock razzle-dazzle with his camera. He does try to inject some movement here and there, to be sure, and it's really worth your while to check out the full director's cut if possible (Amazon video has the 104 minute version, other prints vary), and sometimes it's just in quick cuts like in the jury-room scenes, or in how a close-up of a clock or the timing of a noose being put together in Baring's cell another.Thankfully, along with Percy's eerie, kind of over-the-top but winning performance, and Hitchcock's direction in this meeting between this actor and this writer Sir John (who has a scenario based on the Baring case, albeit with one page "missing" as to the details after a certain point, dot-dot-dot), Murder! has a smashing third act and climax. it suddenly becomes apparent that the movie's strength is in looking at the difference between the theatricality of the stage (and the circus) and real life, which is full of pressure to conform and dreary "facts" without any imagination to look deeper and further.When one thinks about it, a lot of this movie may be kind of brilliant. But it takes some time to get there, and there's stretches of the film that drag, such as a scene with Sir John waking up in the morning, surrounded by, um, kids and a crying baby and a "pussy" cat, and an older woman delivering a LOT of exposition in the kind of English that needs subtitles. Some of the flaws can't be helped due to stone-age cinematic techniques, while others are just more due to a young filmmaker still trying to find his footing into what he "does". Still, Murder! is worth a watch if you dig this man's work, and there's glimpses (sometimes more) into what would become his signature moves.