Highly Overrated But Still Good

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

... as the film really fell under my expectations. "Under Capricorn" is the third Hitchcock's costume drama and the last one. That Hitch never gave a fourth trial says enough, history isn't just his strongest suit.Indeed, Hitchcock is an expert of human emotions and knows more than any director how to convey the most complex and thought-provoking of them in challenging plots, never stingy on twists and surprises, as long as nothing undermines the viewers' attention. Maybe the costumes, the flashy settings all the attention to historical details are too distracting or too time-consuming, maybe people of the 19th century are too exuberant, too solemn or to melodramatic to fit in Hitchcock's universe or to allow him to express his wicked sense of humor and his mastery of suspense. Maybe Hitchcock is too 'modern' for this kind of film.To give you an idea, just look at the positive comments, they all praise the acting, the costumes, the directing, the cinematography… this is not a good sign when a Hitchcock movie is judged on these peripheral and banal elements. Hitchcock movies strike you for two things: action and/or characters and one of them generally makes the film, both in the best ones. When I saw "Gaslight", I immediately came to review my utter disgust toward Gregory Anton, one of the most despicable villains I had ever seen, this is the kind of strong reactions or emotions a film should inspire. But "Under Capricorn" is no "Gaslight".Why do I bring "Gaslight", which isn't even a Hitchcock film, in a review of "Under Capricorn"? I think it's pretty obvious when you saw both movies. "Under Capricorn" had a great potential and a story that promised to be emotionally engaging, no one can endure the sight of poor Bergman being 'gaslighted', not again. Australia wasn't much of an exotic location except for one parameter: the story is built upon the common fact (and not so myth) that many of the first inhabitants were ex-convicts, and after they did their time, they could get back to society and good manners commanded not to ask a man what he's done before. This is a great plot device because from the outsider's standpoint, anyone is suspect.Yet nothing is really made out of that interesting premise. It only serves to hide one secret, the secret of the character we know from the start he's hiding a secret. The exposition takes a long time to present us some characters but their contribution to the plot is so nonexistent you wonder why they were shown to us in the first place. Basically, the film is a seemingly love triangle between Michael Wilding as a young Irish coming to seek fortune, Joseph Cotton as Flusky, a gruff man doing business with him because his past prevents him from buying lands, and his wife Hattie, played by Ingrid Bergman. Unfortunately, none of these three actors can save the film from its long and flat way toward the ending.And I think Hitchcock's fans are intelligent enough to make the difference between drama and thriller, and just from the costumes, they can tell that a film won't be part of Hitchcock's canon. But even by pure dramatic standards, the film doesn't quite work. The main protagonist is an insolent little prick who's so overconfident you want his journey to go through some humility-teaching experiences. None of that, he's as cocky as arrogant in the ending. You expect that the unmasking of the antagonist played by Margaret Leighton will be the result of a suspenseful or at least tense moment; no she is simply caught in the act in the cheapest and most convenient way. I'm not asking for cheap thrills but just action.Drama was the Greek word for action, but "Under Capricorn' might be one of the most talkative movie ever, the plot is only constructed on talks, exchanges and revelations. And the most thrilling moments are immediately canceled off by talking and talking again. This is definitely not a Hitchcock film and while he didn't have a strong reputation when he made "Waltzes of Vienna" and "Jamaica Inn", in 1949, he had so many great movies under his bundle that he couldn't expect "Under Capricorn" to be above people's expectation. Yet the film happened to be ecstatically praised by the Cahier du Cinema French authors, and François Truffaut and Claude Chabrol had the most apologetic words.What did they find in this film? Beats me. But if they're the guys who deemed Clouzot as old-school, you know the closest rival to Hitchcock, it's a wonder how they could blindly adore this film. It is the height of snobbery when you take your adoration to a director as a basis to love whatever he did. Well, Hitchcock who's still one of the greatest directors, was entitled to have a few misfires and this is one of them. You can't praise "Strangers on a Train" and "Rear Window" if you also love "Under Capricorn", it doesn't make sense. Again the film had a great potential, but it was executed as if no one cared to make an impact.And all the costumes and acting in the world can't save a film from dullness; the only interesting thing about it is in the way it makes you wonder how Hitchcock could fail with so many promising elements.

Dear Alfred Hitchcock, My god man! I never thought you could make such tedious melodramatic crap. Ingrid Bergman hams it up as Lady Henrietta Flusky. I have never wished for the quick death of such a beautiful actress. Even a strong cast comprising Joseph Cotten and Michael Wilding cannot save this one. The plot is so convoluted, it should have stayed a play and never been made into a film. This is by far your worst film.If it wasn't for the beautiful and painting like quality of some of the visuals, I would have rated this a 1 on 10. And Joseph Cotten does put in a decent performance.Best Regards, Pimpin.

"Under Capricorn", a 1949 costume drama by Alfred Hitchcock, stars Michael Wilding as Charles Adare, a penniless Irishman who arrives in 1830s Australia. Here he fraternises with various noblemen, and mingles with Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotton), an ex-convict who now heads a small business empire. Flusky's wife, Lady Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman), hails from a prestigious family. She's also an alcoholic, chronically poisoned by her maid Milly (Margaret Leighton), a woman who secretly pines for Flusky.Alfred Hitchcock's films often hinge on incredible emotional violence. In "Under Capricorn", we see a complex web of love, hate, guilt and class based insecurity. Sam's ashamed of his lowly social position, as is his maid, whilst Charles and Henrietta embody a aristocratic class who sacrifice wealth, land and even romance, for the betterment of those few they love.Slow, overly verbose and repetitive, "Under Capricorn" was a box-office flop. It would be mauled by critics, though several would hail it as a masterpiece. It's not, but Hitchcock nevertheless sketches a number of interesting moments. Sam's homestead, for example, is portrayed as a Gothic nightmare, complete with vampiric figures, creepy witches and shadowy conspiracies. Hitchcock also utilises a number of incredibly complex long-takes, some of which would require sets to open up and roll away, mid shot. Other sequences required all lighting equipment and cables to be quickly concealed and repositioned mid-shot, as Hitchcock's camera would often spin around and double back on itself. Such camera work is commonplace today, but in Hitchcock's era, an era of massive, bulky cameras, constituted a logistical nightmare. Bizarrely, this preoccupation with elaborate camera-work may be exactly what ruins "Under Capricorn"; Hitch pays little attention to dialogue, plot, pacing and seems oblivious to his film's unfolding drama."Under Capricorn" resembles several other Hitch flicks. It strongly recalls "Rebecca" and "Suspicion", whilst its tale of poisoning resembles a key subplot in Hitchcock's "Notorious". "Capricorn's" domineering housekeepers, and women who degrade themselves for their lovers, are also traits found in a number of other Hitchcock films. "Under Capricorn" was based on a comedic novel by Helen Simpson. There's no comedy in Hitchcock's film, though, which plays things as a straight, Gothic psychodrama.5/10 – Worth one viewing.

Unusual genre change for Hitchcock, a suspense-less western, crossed with romance and costume drama/ stage play, in the Land Down Under.Long and lumbering mess of a movie, with Hitchcock more interested in setting up lengthy tracking shots than anything else. In the previous year's Rope, Hitchcock used the same trick to good effect, but here it seems to have no purpose, no relation to the story. In Rope, the long, unedited takes resembled an unblinking, all seeing eye.Here, it seems like the same unblinking, all-seeing eye refuses to look away, even though it knows it should have looked away long ago.The long, unedited takes look like master shots, or even just raw footage. It becomes somewhat hypnotic, dulling the senses to the dull screen story. It feels like we are just blankly staring into space, completely unaware of what is happening, but too bored to even look away. (Is that what the cinematographer felt?) It's like we are carrying on a dull conversation with someone, and that someone refuses to break eye contact, like they are waiting for us to suddenly become interested in the proceedings. A few close-ups were needed to bring out more detail, in the settings and performances, but as it is, it seems like the filmmakers couldn't even bother to do much editing.The set designs and costumes all look good, but that cannot support the entire movie on its own. The film could have benefited (slightly) from on-location photography, but everything was filmed on soundstages in California.Starts slowly, but then it looks as though it may get going and become interesting, but then it fizzles away, all within its first half hour. It doesn't really even have Hitchcock's usual sense of humour to liven the proceedings. A complete waste. Probably one of the few Hitchcock films that I could not sit through a second time.