The Paradine Case

Well-done but tedious litigious yarn.

First the good points, the film is beautiful, perfectly directed and powerful acting. But the near downfall for the movie is the fact I couldn't understand the lead's sudden all consuming infatuation/obsession with Mrs. Paradine. Also the relationship between Gregory Peck's character and that of his wife seemed really odd and seemed to crumble fast. Overall a slightly above average movie that easily could've been great.

Peck is an absolute dud, of course, and Selznick's touch is felt all over the place. It's mostly very dull and far too talky, the only interesting character is Mrs. Paradine and even Valli's performance isn't that great, although that may largely be due to Selznick cutting out so much of it. And Selznick also removed a scene that would have established Peck's character as a skilled attorney. Instead he comes off like an incompetent moron. A few interesting moments, but not nearly enough of them.

Darkly funny and obsessive, this sleekly stylized courtroom thriller foreshadows masterworks to come; in its way, as satisfying as Spellbound

Peck is barely passable and it's just relentlessly talky stodge, it's so obvious Selznick was hovering over everything.

This one was a bit too unbelievable for me (at times), but still interesting and well-acted.

Gregory Peck is stiffer than usual, accomplishing the almost impossible feat of making his fascination with the gorgeous Valli seem improbable. The individual scenes are well directed--as one expects from Hitchcock--but the whole movie drags, probably because of Selznick, whose idea of "important" is my idea of "ponderous." I rate this film as highly as I do because Ann Todd, an underrated actress, gives a sensitive and nuanced performance--almost as good as her work in "Madeleine."

hitchcock does a lot with a little here. the story really isn't that interesting, but the performances and composition make it worth watching.

Hitch's worst film IMHO

70.000

Acting is mostly over the top, yet overall it was really engaging.

Peck was easily Hitch's worst leading man. I wonder why that is.

There are elements of a much better movie in place here. Valli's performance has an air of malevolence and mystery, and the bare bones of the romance at the center has great potential. But the film never takes off. Peck is an immensely dull protagonist, rendering what could be a compelling role into a mannequin, and the courtroom scenes have no spark. One of Hitchcock's least successful works.

Blah. Peck plays one of the most naive characters in cinema history.

Very boring pointless story which not even Laughton could save. Definitely not Hitchcocks best.

Quite boring. However, the peculiarity of the British courtroom is amusing to follow in the film. Hitchcock set it up well, especially by casting Laughton and Carroll as judge and prosecutor. Their antics provided some smirks in the midst of the otherwise mediocre watching experience.

Way underrated. I love how sleazy a lawyer Peck plays when he finally gets to the trial. And that scene between him and the French servant in his lodgings, with the chandelier, is perfect.

61.625

Valli is great as Maddalena, really capturing the mystique and enchanting beauty of the woman. The development of her character until the final emotional outbursts are built up well. Hitchcock builds some nice suspense in the middle part, and the way he shows that most of the characters, even those who "hate" her as being fooled into thinking her innocent was done well. The love triangle, and Gay's passion, mixed with Tony's desires conflict well, but I must say the court scenes drag on a bit.

A court case shot like a master, but script-wise is among the least fascinating stories Alfred Hitchcock had to work with in Hollywood. He's unable to get the momentum under this one, nor is the twist that remarkable considering how edgy Hitchcock could be. On top of that, young Gregory Peck looked surprisingly lightweight in the role as barrister. The pre-release cut was an hour longer, and I think a lot of the issues I had with the film are laying on the cutting-room floor.

It isn't a momentous Hitchcock effort, and it isn't a momentous script either, for the intent of cinema that is, developed by Selznick himself from Robert Hichens' novel. After a hazy buildup of evidence and of passion in lawyer Gregory Peck's heart, the story finally goes into a static but enthralling courtroom and thankfully remains there for most of the second hour.