All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1167. An easy way of seeing how…
Thief... Liar... Cheat... she was all of these and he knew it!
Marnie is a beautiful kleptomaniac who is in love with businessman Mark Rutland. Marnie who is a compulsive thief is being watched by her new boss Mark who suspects her of stealing from him and thus decides to blackmail her in the most unusual way. A psychological thriller from Alfred Hitchcock based on a novel of the same name by Winston Graham.
Throughout his decades-spanning career, Alfred Hitchcock has given us some of the finest thrillers in cinema that have wildly entertained critics & viewers alike, but Marnie is unfortunately not one of them. It's a tad overlong with a bit messy plot for a psychological thriller & although it has its little moments, it ultimately remains a disappointing experience for the most part.
Marnie tells the story of the troubled titular character who is a habitual thief & liar and has some serious psychological problems. After she is caught by her boss while trying to steal from her latest place of employment, he forces her to marry him despite her uneasy behaviour and, after finding out about her traumatic past, helps her to confront…
There are those that believe that Marnie was Hitchcock's final masterpiece - but it really wasn't.
A complex melodrama that attempts to tackle several different subjects at once, it never really makes any of them interesting enough to care much about them. The one or two of them that look as though they could be very interesting are not elaborated on at all or end up being dropped altogether. Marnie is a maddening film that ends up feeling more like Hitchcock biting off more than he can chew.
He had proved that he could tackle complex and well-woven relationship drama-thrillers with Vertigo but there is a feeling of…
Up there with Vertigo in terms of psychological density with the occasional bluntness of Hitchcock's narrative exposition attempting to trick us into believing that he's being a lot less subtle here than he actually is. The falseness of the sets (especially around Marnie's mother's house) act as some sort of physical manifestation of the pervasive lies and deceit that serve as much of the drive - it's all just a façade, an extra shell to hide the forgotten truth. Some obvious connections to gialli in terms of form and character motivations/actions being directly linked to past trauma, and it even features a rather intense flashback scene with blood so deeply red it would impress Argento. Personally, I…
"I've caught something really wild this time, haven't I?" ~ Mark
Marnie is a compulsive thief. Marnie is psychotic. Manie is a liar and a frigid man-hater. So why do we do we root for Marnie throughout this film?
For one thing, Marnie Edgar is played by Tippi Hedren, who had already earned our sympathy in her breakout debut as the female lead in "The Birds" a year earlier. Also, as director Alfred Hitchcock explains, "The average person looking at someone doing evil or wrong wants the person to get away with it. You can't go as far as murder, of course, but almost anything up to that point." So Marie steals money. She steals identities. She steals our sympathy.…
Occupies a spot almost precisely halfway between the warped glory of Vertigo and the leaden idiocy of Spellbound. I know some folks argue that we're supposed to embrace the latter in this instance, viewing Marnie's repressed trauma as a correlative to (e.g.) the Expressionistic matte painting at the end of her childhood street, but one of my many failings is an inability to take seriously any psychological case study rooted entirely in a single slice of backstory that Explains Everything. (As a counterexample, think of how the final scene of Exotica complicates that template. Or, hell, think of Vertigo itself, which gives you the traumatic incident right up front and doesn't pretend it has any bearing on Scottie's mania.)…
Review In A Nutshell:
Marnie shows the Master of Suspense treading similar water, psychological character study, but this time he dissects the mind of a damaged female; Vertigo, Psycho, and Spellbound find the vulnerabilities of the male figure with the female present to help or further break their fragile mind.
Marnie had the potential to be great, it contains all the essential materials required for an essential classic Hitchcock, but every single one of those ingredients seem to be like their lesser quality counterparts, producing a final product that barely leaves taste in the tongue. The characters aren't as developed as Hitchcock's previous film and the two leading actors together do not possess that sensual chemistry that made Vertigo or…
This is a weird movie. Tippi hams it up. It's almost laughable at times. Sean Connery tries to do an American accent but is, inexorably, Scottish. He's also an amateur Freudian, so that's fun. Very little about this movie works well. Some shots are nice. Some filming choices are fine.
What an utterly atrocious script, hampered by an emotionless Connery and a punch-less Tippi: Marnie clocks in at two hours and ten minutes—roughly the length of Vertigo, though what you get is not slow, contemplative style, but characters rambling on about stuff in uninspired close-ups only for the movie to deliver its hooey freudian twist after virtually no worthwhile build-up.
Furthermore, some of the scene-painting is embarassing—for example: that outside of the mother's house.
The toxic id buried beneath [insert Hitchcock/Cary Grant film here] laid bare. A raw, exposed nerve of a film that’s as deeply flawed as it is utterly compelling.
I'm loathe to claim this has an outright misogynistic streak (as has been mentioned in some other reviews I've read), but the recurring motif equating Connery's treatment of Hedren (and women in general) to his treatment of horses - and the uncomfortable twinning of the rape scene/suicide attempt with Marnie's horse stumbling over a stone wall/being put out of its misery - is...well, it's certainly enough to give one pause when considering the matter.
It's like if Scottie from Vertigo weren't a tragic figure and was instead a wise-cracking Cary Grant-type. Which is a deeply disturbing idea.
Further, I think there were some questionable choices, like the red filter coming over the screen when Marnie sees red, and while I usually love Bernard Hermann's Hitchcock scores, this one was pretty overbearing.
An extremely unnerving movie, but not entirely for the right reasons. Certainly worth watching for the strangeness of it all.
One thing I immediately noticed in terms of what made Marnie different than Vertigo is that there was more of a focus on the female protagonist. There was an in depth developed backstory to her character, something that I felt Vertigo almost had but somewhat lacked. In terms of similarities, though, the male protagonists are similar in terms of their manipulative and controlling behaviors towards their female counterparts. Additionally, both Marnie and Scottie show signs of severe mental trauma and Hitchcock shows this in two different cinematic ways.
I enjoyed watching "Marnie" because of its intriguing way of telling a hidden story. "Marnie" and "Vertigo" have very similar lead characters, but their plots are very different. I personally liked the plot of "Marnie" better. It started out confusing with unanswered questions, like "Vertigo", but towards the middle the confusing elements started to make sense, unlike "Vertigo". Overall, I think "Marnie" was a great movie.
If you thought Sean Connery's James Bond films could be awkwardly sexist, you have NO IDEA how far it can go. Seriously, Alfred Hitchcock managed to outdo the Bond films in terms of horrendously dated attitudes on gender roles and sexual trauma without the satisfaction of actually being a well made Hitchcock film. Much of the issues center around Connery's character, who act as a this initially charming foil to Tippi Hedrin's disturbed compulsive liar & thief, but soon turns into this maniacal sexual predator... and he ends up being a semi-hero to Marnie in context of this incredibly sexist storyline. None of this is helped by some of Hitchcock's weakest symbolic imagery and overly ambitious effects work that only make…
A psycho-sexual melodrama with a freudian twist. Why doesn't this film work.
I am a Hitchcock enthusiast, and as you are about to read, an apologist when needed. I don't think the problem with this film rests at Hitch's feet. The script is terrible. There is no getting around it. It is blathering psychoanalyst nonsense disguised as intrigue. Hitch only punches up scripts, he did write them.
I can say that this failure isn't entirely Hitch's fault, because his visual style and camera moves / blocking are still there. If this was a silent film I think it would work much better. There are far too many scenes that drag on for far too long, where the characters just sit…
So outwardly terrible in many ways - Connery is so, so bad, Herrman's score is badly overwrought, the whole thing is so outrageous and stupid…but not easily dismissible. There's a festering power underneath, and I don't mean the silly (though powerful) flashback at the end and its obvious insinuations; reading that at face value means accepting and vindicating Connery's character as a noble force exterior to her trauma which I don't think is possible.
In fact, unlocking its elusive dark meaning seems to hinge upon a particularly autobiographical slant - it wouldn't work as well with any other actress, and Hitchcock's notorious treatment of Hedren in their previous film, The Birds, and subsequent fallout is as crucial a context as…