Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

hrkepler Strangely unexciting yet charming movie. Definitely not Hitchcock's best, one can even say that 'Under Capricorn' might belong in great master's few lesser films. Maybe that is the problem - most people probably went into the film expecting typical Hitchcock suspense, but there was very little of that. Even with saying that, 'Under Capricorn' still manages to be entertaining enough and almost two hour run time didn't feel like suffering (by that I mean, at least I didn't force to sit myself through - the film was entertaining). Costume dramas and Victorian soap operas are not Hitch's trademark, and that particular film is only recommended to those who feel the need to see every Hitchcock film, or fans of particular type of melodramatic period pieces.The casting, although all wonderful actors, is off. It needs to have suspense of disbelief to buy the characters as Irish - Wilding sounded like genuine Englishman, Cotten sounded like American, and magnificent Ingrid Bergman sounded like Swede. To put that aside the performances were little above 'just hamming it out' category thus making the film more tolerable.

Bill Slocum Is "Under Capricorn" an underrated masterpiece, or a piece of something else? Opinion varies; understandable when you have a great director working so far outside his established milieu.In 1831, Sydney, Australia is something of a cowtown, except with sheep instead of cows, where ex-convicts make a new life for themselves in a rugged land. For one of them, Lady Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman), that life involves many bottles of strong drink wilting away in the care of her stern but loving husband, Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotten). A lifeline arrives in the form of a carefree man from back home in Ireland, Charles Adare (Michael Wilding), who with Sam's suspicious support seeks to restore some of Hattie's old spirit, and give her confidence.Funny how Ingrid always got stuck with Alfred Hitchcock's problem pictures. She never got the easy roles like Grace Kelly. Here, she's caught in a love triangle between two men while adrift in her own secret sorrows. And this time she has more than a bit of drinking problem to boot.Hitchcock lovers may well find "Under Capricorn" too much to take. Hitchcock is working here in the field of historical melodrama, not suspense, and sets himself an unusual hurdle in the form of long continuous shots, a carryover from his prior film "Rope." Some of these are quite masterful, going through walls and floors to capture long dialogues. But as other reviewers note, the absence of a quicker pace does make things tedious after not very long.In essence, as others note, this is a film about characters, not story, and the characters are not easy to like. Sam is the roughest of them, the sort of fellow easy to resent until you realize how deep his feelings for Hattie run. "She'd go at a fence like it had the Kingdom of Heaven on the other side of it," he tells a somewhat bored Charles. Charles' attraction for Hattie is clear - it's Ingrid Bergman, after all - but Sam's deeper love is tangled with jealousy and class resentment.Bergman does the best work, as she always did in the Hitchcock films she starred in, playing damaged goods like she did in "Notorious." "I lived on my will, and my will is exhausted," she tells Charles late in the film, by which time we finally learn the terrible secret that keeps Sam and Hattie miserable even as they remain together.Hitchcock really keeps you guessing as to which man Hattie should take up. You could write books on Hitchcock and love, and run out of pages before you run out of things to say. "Under Capricorn" offers a lot of material to that end. Too bad it struggles so much to tell its tale, decent as it is. There's plenty to admire here, like the technical brilliance of the many tracking shots, the understated supporting work by Wilding (here a cad, albeit with honor), and the exquisite lighting that draws you in like a moth to a flame. But those long tracking shots make one wish for more action.There is some suspense at the end, involving an altercation between Charles and Sam, which is in the end rather silly. There's a sinister maid, played by Margaret Leighton who telegraphs her untoward intentions in every frame so blatantly you wonder why Sam never notices. Running just under two hours, "Under Capricorn" takes much too long to get to the point, then resolves things a tad too neatly than it should.But accepting that this isn't one of Hitchcock's great films is not to say it's unworthy of his name. He directed some poor films, but this has enough going for it in its elegant cinematography (Jack Cardiff's one time working with Hitch) and a luminous Bergman performance, not to mention a strong turn by Cotton. I get why he didn't like the film, as it makes poor Sam too much of a lout in places, but the end result is a solid if secondary work by several name talents worthy of viewing without prejudice.

shonayss It was an enjoyable movie but I like the non-typical Hitchcock films.Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotton are wonderful and I really like Michael Wilding (he was great in Stage Fright also).This film was a little reminiscent of Gaslight (when I was a kid I thought Gaslight was a Hitchcock film) I really don't know why they say typical Hitchcock anyway, his films are really from one end of the spectrum to the other.It was his only period piece so I was curious to see it I really liked this film and hope more people will give it a try, In my humble opinion his last 2 movies were the worst.

Lee Eisenberg When we think of Alfred Hitchcock, we think of suspense: murders in showers, avian attacks, etc. "Under Capricorn" is a different turn for the Sultan of Suspense. Focusing on a love triangle in 1800s Australia, the emphasis is on the relationships between the characters, especially between a new arrival (Michael Wilding) from Ireland and the unhappy wife (Ingrid Bergman) of a businessman (Joseph Cotten). The plot does have a hint of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" but goes in its own direction. While watching the movie I didn't catch Hitch's cameo, which turned out to be more subtle than his more famous ones.The movie's strength lies in Bergman's and Cotten's characters. They play their roles forcefully enough to shock the audience, even though there's minimal suspense. There's a scene with a shrunken head that looks to me as if it may have inspired the notorious horse scene in "The Godfather". In the end I wouldn't call this one of Hitch's greatest movies, but still worth a watch.