"To Catch a Thief: Hitchcock's worst film?"

Absolutely no offence, but I think you're crazy!

'Rope' is an exceptional film, both fascinating as an experiment and as a piece of true cinema in its own right. Sure, Hitchcock couldn't snag Cary Grant, and (some) people get annoyed at the tracking into the rear of an actor (the length of the camera mags at the time), but I don't think it detracts from the film in any way whatsoever. Jimmy Stewart is bizarre in the role (and he can play it convincingly - his 'Everyman' screen persona is here perversely inverted by Hitchcock, and, indeed, Stewart himself!) and John Dall is incredible as 'Brandon'. Hell, the whole cast is fantastic, and (contrary to some opinions), I think the slow burn tension is unbearable.

Quite honestly, I have never understood those who downgrade the film. Yes, even Arthur Laurents (screenplay), on the DVD documentary, criticises the film - but I think everyone is way off base.

'Rope' is an incredible achievement in every way.

 

Absolutely no offence, but I think you're crazy!

'Rope' is an exceptional film, both fascinating as an experiment and as a piece of true cinema in its own right. Sure, Hitchcock couldn't snag Cary Grant, and (some) people get annoyed at the tracking into the rear of an actor (the length of the camera mags at the time), but I don't think it detracts from the film in any way whatsoever. Jimmy Stewart is bizarre in the role (and he can play it convincingly - his 'Everyman' screen persona is here perversely inverted by Hitchcock, and, indeed, Stewart himself!) and John Dall is incredible as 'Brandon'. Hell, the whole cast is fantastic, and (contrary to some opinions), I think the slow burn tension is unbearable.

Quite honestly, I have never understood those who downgrade the film. Yes, even Arthur Laurents (screenplay), on the DVD documentary, criticises the film - but I think everyone is way off base.

'Rope' is an incredible achievement in every way.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But three times?

 

He had an editor, David Kentley, but he was somewhat "indisposed".

 

"To Catch A Thief' is hardly Hitchcock's worse film. I find it very entertaining and that was probably AH's intent. Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, the south of France and Technicolour - if you think that's a bad film then all your taste is in your mouth.

Re. "Rope". IIRC, Hitchcock's intent with the one reel long take approach was not to indulge in some cinematic experimental or make an grand artistic statement. It was a sly and practical way of maintaining control over the final cut of the film and minimizing studio interference in the editing process by shooting only what he wanted as a final cut and therefore offering no alternative takes.

I do not believe that "Rope" is his worse film, either. My criticism of it is that it is a little too 'stiff' in that it resembles a filmed stage play rather than a film in its own right. (I cannot remember at this moment whether the source material was a play or not.)

 

No, it isn't. I love that film and it got much better critical reviews than several of his films. "Convoy" is much worse for one.

Chris

 

Well, I agreed all three times.

Rope is a most fascinating experiment. The Paradine Case however is a most boring experiment, and an obvious better choice for worst, if you have to make one. Personally, I find even Hitch's weaker films to be highly interesting.

With DePalma it's hard to settle on a worst film, he has so many bad ones -- Snake Eyes anyone?

 

Rope is brilliant. It would make my Hitchcock top 10 (although it'd be somewhere around #9 or #10).

To Catch A Thief is not Hitchcock's worst, but it may be the worst to be regularly cited as a classic.

 

I'm surprised by some of the dislike for To Catch a Thief. I don't think it's as good as Rebecca or Notorious or Vertigo. But it's a most enjoyable film, and I think it's not more of a fluff piece than North by Northwest for example.

 

IMHO ...

While "Convoy" is obviously a cheesey, "this is merely a job I am forced to take because the studios won't produce the type of projects I want to direct" film which resembes a B-grade TV movie, taken on its own terms (i.e. not too seriously), at least it's watchable in its entirety.

I remember watching "... Cable Hogue" late at night on TV years ago - all the way through (and it never seemed to end) - thinking "this is terrible ... really awful". Afterwards, when I realized Peckinpah had directed it I was shocked. While Peckinpah did not have artistic control over "Convoy", he certainly did on "... Cable Hogue". I have tried on two other occasions to view it again (it is included in the Peckinpah DVD box-set) and never made past the half way point.

 

Mmm....I see great minds think alike.

 

I really enjoyed To Catch a Thief.

 

I agree.It's also much better than The Killer Elite.

 

Again, absolutely no offence (!), but Hitchcock's British period is criminally ignored in favour of his Hollywood years. I do think, as a viewer, one has to make more of a leap to accommodate the era with the British films, but films like 'The Lodger', 'Blackmail', 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' and the 'The Lady Vanishes' are the works of someone who was refining a 'voice' and then clearly found it.

Indeed, I rank 'Sabotage' (1936) as the greatest from the British period, and one of Hitchcock's greatest films period.

I do think the problem, as stated above, concerns the ability of a modern audience to accommodate the era (and the particularly British character of the films), but the films are also not helped by the shoddy, public domain copies that are in general circulation. Scratched prints, dim or washed out tone, poor soundtracks - they would obviously try the patience of most (casual) viewers.

I really think the British period is criminally underrated, and critics like Robin Wood have worked hard to bring attention to Hitchcock's incredible work from the period.

 

Computer glitch!

Although, my point of view was worth stating 3 times.

 

Well, the Davids of this world merely occupy space - as do a few of the posts in this thread!

 

I really hadn't considered the reasons "Convoy" is much worse than "The Ballad of Cable Hogue", but your point is valid in that regard which doesn't change the fact I much prefer one to the other. I do think the film is lightweight of course, but fun for me.

Chris

 

To Catch a Thief? It's a weak late Hitchcock; certainly not as weak as Topaz - but it's got style, charm, Cary Grant and Grace Kelly and is eminently watchable. Strangers on a Train - one of his best, imho.

As for Peckinpah's worst... Well, Convoy, Alfredo Garcia and The Osterman Weekend do nothing for me. I kind of like Cable Hogue, even if it seems at odds with the rest of his oeuvre, though it pales in comparison to The Wild Bunch, Ride the High Country, Cross of Iron, Junior Bonner and the Getaway.

 

Yeah... "The Killer Elite", now we're talking awful stuff...

Actually, the whole list is entire fluff put together by some guy who clearly hasn't seen most of the movies by the directors he claims to judge. This should have been titled "Worst films I could find at Blockbuster's from the best directors"

Scorsese: "Kundun", anybody?
Coppola: How about "Jack", starring Robin Williams?
De Palma: "Black Dahlia" was disappointing but there are much worse stinkers in the De Palma film library. "Mission To Mars", "The Bonfire of the Vanities", "Wise Guys"... I was almost bored to death by "Femme Fatale", "Snake Eyes" turned out to be a big letdown after the first sequence and I still don't understand why "The Fury" is so praised when you've got Andrew Stevens starring in it and a bad cardboard replica of John Cassavettes' head exploding.

 

I'd also rather watch "To Catch a Thief" than "Vertigo". Besides watching Grace Kelly (and Cary Grant, I'm man enough to say ), I love the music in "Thief". Really nicely done!

 

"...and yet every one of those films is a staggering work of cinematic genius compared to "The Killer Elite". "

Oh my God, you're right. Terrible.