Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

davidcarniglia I can't add much to the many excellent reviews of this Hitchcock classic. But I do want to dwell on a crucial aspect of the plot, and comment on a few bits of Strangers on a Train.Why doesn't Guy go to the police immediately after he learns that Miriam has been killed? Sure, the 'trading murders' scheme sounds nuts; but since he knows he'll be under suspicion anyway, he has nothing to lose. Bruno, with his fixation on Guy and their alleged 'deal,' would show his hand, drawing the cops' attention away from Guy.Imagine the guests at the senator's party recounting to the cops Bruno's absurd ranting about a new source of energy, or, even more damning, his choke hold on the elderly lady. Of course, without Bruno free to slither around, then there would be little mystery, and no movie.After just watching it again, it's fascinating how Hitchcock uses the glasses motif to tie in the murder victim with Ann's sister. Bruno focuses on Barbara as a haunting surrogate for Miriam. In a sense, she avenges the victim by helping to entrap Bruno. Her glasses point to the noir emphasis on reflections as a literal mirror held to the criminal side of life.Maybe I can answer the question I began with: Guy won't give up Bruno, because they have a bizarre bond. They're reflections of each other, Bruno the noir Hyde to Guy's everyday Jekyll. Tennis couldn't be a more fitting metaphor for the sunny side of life portrayed by Guy, as opposed to Bruno's mostly nocturnal or interior habitats. Maybe Hitchcock's most noir movie, and one of the better noirs made.

JohnHowardReid Alfred Hitchcock induced Chandler to break his self-imposed exile from Hollywood for Strangers on a Train (1951). Here we have another screen classic - like Double Indemnity - for which Chandler is not given due credit. Part of this lapse is due to Hitchcock himself who, in later interviews, constantly derided Chandler's contribution. "The work he did was no good," good old Hitch complained to many a celebrated critic. But despite the Chandler script's supposed lack of quality, super-indulgent old Hitch had used it anyway. Adapted from a Patricia Highsmith story, the Chandler hand is evident not only in the inward-twisting plot and contrastingly classy and gaudy atmosphere, but in the tensely nervy and often cynical dialogue, - and even more particularly in the characterization of the festeringly bizarre but remarkably personable psychopath so brilliantly played here by Robert Walker.

zkonedog When examining the merits of Alfred Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", it is clear that the Master of Suspense crafted another winner. What was remarkable to me, however, was how he did it with such a simple plot line...instead creating the suspense from one of the creepiest characters in film history.For a basic plot summary, "Strangers on a Train" sees two men meet up with each other on a random train ride. Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is a young tennis pro who desperately wants a divorce from his vindictive wife. Bruno Antony (Robert Walker) is suffocating under the harsh discipline of is father. When Bruno brings up the thought of a "criss-cross" murder swap to solve both their problems, the film has its fuel.In terms of overall plot, the goings are relatively simple here. This is pretty much par for the course with Hitch, as (with a few exceptions) his films' plots are actually pretty standard and containing the tried-and-true MacGuffins he has become famous for (in this case it is a lighter from the scene of a crime).What makes this film really stand out and engage the viewer, then, is the character of Bruno and subsequent acting job by Walker. From the very beginning, audiences understand how crazy of a man Bruno is, and his character-development only continues the journey down that rabbit hole as the film progresses. He is easily one of the spookiest characters ever put to film.Thus, "Strangers on a Train" is a very good Hitchcock effort. It contains the typical MacGuffin plot device, some very inventive camera work, and a villainous character who just may keep you up at night. Watch with confidence knowing it will captivate you from beginning to end.

capone666 Strangers on a TrainThe perfect murder is any murder you can commit on a Sunday wearing your favourite pair of Crocs. However, the strangers in this thriller have a different idea of an idyllic homicide.Guy (Farley Granger) wants to leave his wife Miriam (Laura Elliott) and marry his mistress (Ruth Roman). Bruno (Robert Walker) wants his father dead. The two randomly meet on a train and agree to take care of each other's problems.While Bruno holds up his end of the bargain, Guy backs out on his. Infuriated, Bruno goes to plant evidence at the amusement park where he strangled Miriam, unless Guy can stop him. One of Alfred Hitchcock's most revered works, this redrafting of the 1950s bestseller remains a visual landmark to this day. Meanwhile, Raymond Chandler's hardboiled script retains its dark, relatable qualities.Moreover, it reminds us that strangers are just friends we haven't committed murder for yet. Green Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca