User reviews

That could have been Cary Grant's most chilling line in his long career.

*SPOILERS*

Except RKO didn't have the courage of its convictions. Having bought the rights to Francis Iles' novel, and despite Hitchcock's insistence on sticking with the original ending, neither preview audiences nor the studio were ready to accept Cary Grant as a murderer. So its present ending was hastily written and shot. It completely subverts all the fine work that's gone before.

Joan Fontaine was a brilliant actress and valiantly, passionately, breathlessly tries to make the shockingly amateurish dialogue in the final scene work -- "Oh, Johnny! You were going to kill yourself instead of me, like the audience and I have thought for the last 90 minutes! Oh, Johnny! It's as much my fault as it is yours! Oh, Johnny! I was only thinking of myself . . . ," etc.

Cary Grant does his best with this final abomination of a climax. "Lina! Lina! How much can one man bear! When you and the audience thought I was in Paris murdering Beaky I was really in Liverpool!" Etc.

Huh?

In other words, this beautifully produced, directed, acted and written psychological suspense thriller turns out to be about a charming lazy n'er-do-well who's sponged and embezzled his way through life, who marries a beautiful but neurotic aristocrat who, from day one, increasingly assumes the worst about her husband -- convincing herself (and us) that he's killed before and now is about to kill her?

"Just kidding," the tacked-on final scene says. "It was all innocent. You eating popcorn out there in the dark, and Lina, should be ashamed for even THINKING such things! Go home now."

It helps, out of self defense, to watch "Suspicion" with the original ending in mind. Yes, the milk is poisoned. Yes Johnny killed Beaky in Paris. Yes, he's a psychopath who lies, cheats, steals and kills. Yes, Lina believed him and loved him deeply -- the only man she's ever loved. Yes, her life is no longer worth living, now that she knows the truth about Johnny. Yes, she rightly suspects that milk is poisoned. So she writes a letter to her mother, telling the truth about Johnny's exploits, and that he is poisoning her as she writes -- and that she intends to die. She seals the letter and gives it to Johnny to mail. She drinks the milk. Johnny leaves and unknowingly drops Lina's letter into a mailbox, thus sealing his fate.

THAT'S a rewarding ending.

It also makes everything that's gone before (including writing, directing, performances and cinematography) plausible. It gives "Suspicion" a reason to exist.

But that's the novel's ending.

The film's "Lina and the audience are just paranoid" ending makes fools out of all the talent on display here. And of us.

Hold mentally to the original ending and you'll love it.

Cary Grant plays a real creep in this film, a guy who sponges off others and who is allergic to telling the truth. He marries a "spinster" (Joan Fontaine, uh...), the daughter of a wealthy man, but seems to have darker ambitions than simple gold digging. Hitchcock is masterful in building up our dislike of Grant's character over the film, and despite it being a quiet kind of film, he maximizes suspense in several scenes. I loved the little touches like the dinner party with the murder mystery author and her family, and the affable friend "Beaky" played by Nigel Bruce. Unfortunately the ending is just awful, which is a real shame since there were several other possibilities. Half a tick off for that, and frankly the deduction could have been more.

Favorite lines: Johnny (Grant): What do you think of me by contrast to your horse? Lina (Fontaine): If I ever got the bit between your teeth, I'd have no trouble in handling you at all.

And as a side note, never marry a man who:

• Sneaks into first-class and when caught, mooches off you (a stranger) to pay for him
• Constantly calls you monkeyface
• Touches your ucipital mapilary (I confess I just wanted to say "ucipital mapillary")
• Brags about having been with 73+ women
• You don't know diddly about, e.g. what his plans for making a living are
• Practically chokes on the idea of getting a job, and wants to borrow from others instead
• You catch lying to you more than once
• Sells your prized possessions to go gambling (I mean those family heirloom chairs, c'mon)
• Humiliates you in condescending ways with his buddy
• Has an excessive interest in your father's wealth
• Also has an excessive interest in non-traceable poisons

...even if he is Cary Grant.

While in many respects one of Hitchcock's lesser films, "Suspicion" has some good performances and a degree of suspense that is as sustained as in any of his films. The movie gets quite a lot out of a relatively simple plot.

Joan Fontaine gives an excellent performance as Lina, a quiet young woman who finds herself swept away by, and suddenly married to, the charming but irresponsible Johnnie, played by Cary Grant. Not long afterwards, she begins to question his behavior and his intentions, and soon she is terribly afraid, both of what he might have done and of what he might do. Whenever she manages to overcome one of her fears, no sooner does she do so than her husband gives her a new reason for suspicion. There really isn't much more to it than that, but Hitchcock gets a lot out of this basic premise. The tension keeps building, and Fontaine's performance allows the viewer to feel all of her fear and anxiety. Not everyone likes the way that it all ends, but it is worth seeing and deciding for yourself what you think about it.

The rest of the cast have mostly limited roles, but give good performances that add to the portrayal of the main characters. Especially good is Nigel Bruce, who provides a few lighter moments as one of Johnnie's old cronies.

While lacking the complexity and excitement of Hitchcock's best pictures, "Suspicion" is still a good example of his ability to keep the audience in lasting suspense. Most Hitchcock fans will want to see it.

A timid, attractive young girl named Lina(Joan Fontaine) falls in love with John(Gary Grant) an adventurer, wealthy man. Her parents( Dame May Witty and Sir Cedric Hardwicke) are opposed about the relationship. However, they early married ,living in Sussex . Then she gradually realizes and suspects that her hubby is allegedly a murderer and that she is the intended victim . Lina fears may be next on his list.

After ¨39 steps¨ and ¨Jamaica Inn¨ Hitchcock was encouraged to go to America and promptly won Oscar to best picture for his first film there, titled ¨Rebeca¨. Later,R.K.O, Radio Pictures offered him the direction of ¨Suspicion¨. The picture packs tension , thriller,suspense and excitement. The film is one of the splendid thrillers with 'imminent danger' as its theme, achieving the maximum impact on the audience and containing numerous exciting set pieces with usual Hitchcock touches . The movie is full of lingering images as the glass(Hitch put into the object a light) of milk and shot of the characters upstairs pacing up and down with shades on the walls.

The casting is frankly magnificent .Gary Grant, actually named Archibald Leach ( born in Bristol,1904) in his first Hitchock film is excellent. Joan Fontaine as the timid, shy bride consumed with fears is awesome and won a deserved Oscar to best main actress. First rate secondary cast constituted by Nigel Bruce ¨the famous Watson¨ who worked in ¨Rebeca¨ too ; Dame May Witty (The lady vanishes) ; Cedric Hardwicke(The rope)and Leo G.Carroll a habitual in Hitch movies. But to Hitch didn't like the film for the cutting out the ending, due to production's insistence to retain the sympathetic image Gary Grant, the most attractive of all Hollywood actors ; however Hitch will let ultimately to remake his movie .The motion picture is based on a novel titled : ¨Before the fact¨ and screen written by his familiar brain trust, his wife Alma Reville and Joan Harrison. Also shown in computer-colored version though best avoid it .It's remade in an inferior version by Andrew Grieve(1987)with Anthony Andrews and Jane Curtin.

This film is often criticized for its cop-out ending, but even worse is the beginning. The introductory scenes are sloppily constructed and the characters are annoying. Grant is a broke, lazy, and deceitful cad (these are his good qualities; he may also be a murderer) who somehow manages to move about in high society. Fontaine is beautiful and supposedly intelligent but marries Grant after about five minutes of courtship. Bruce is a blithering idiot but somehow has millions saved. The film gets better after Grant stops behaving like a buffoon and there are some nice Hitchcock touches, such as the classic scene with the glass of milk, but it is not enough to save this from mediocrity.

I watched this film last night, not knowing what to expect. Hitchcock is my favourite director, yet Suspicion is not treated among his best work. My conclusion from watching the film is that it is very good, but it is not perfect, and not Hitchcock's best. What let it down? Well, a lot of reviews have said so already, but the ending. For me it was abrupt and felt tacked on and somewhat implausible. Then again, StageFright and the Birds both had somewhat abrupt endings. And I know it isn't the fastest paced of his movies, but Torn Curtain's pacing was disappointingly pedestrian. However, Suspicion has a lot to recommend it. The acting is uniformly excellent, with Cary Grant charming and sometimes chilling as the man suspected of trying to murder his wife, and Joan Fontaine, looking gorgeous as ever even better as Lina giving a performance of edge and vulnerability. Out of the supporting performances, Nigel Bruce is simply terrific as Beaky, Leo G Caroll while in a brief role is memorable as the Captain and Cedric Hardwicke who played Frollo in the 1939 film The Hunchback of Notre Dame so memorably is great as the General. The direction is superb, tense when it needs to be and gentle in others and also filled with the fashionable touches that make his very best films great. The film is shot in a very sumptuous visual style, with beautiful black and white cinematography and lovely costumes and sets. The score from Franz Waxman is simply marvellous; the scoring in the scene when Lina writes the letter is enough to give you goosebumps. All in all, not Hitchock's best, but very good all the same. 9/10 Bethany Cox

"Suspicion" is a classically Hitchcockian film, with Joan Fontaine as a woman who marries a charming scoundrel, played by Cary Grant, who she begins to think might kill for money. Parts of the film, such as Grant's "courting" techniques, seem rather dated, but the tension builds well, and my interest was held throughout. The ending, however, seems tacked-on and very unsatisfying in execution, even if not in content. This seemed to me to be a lesser film than the best of Hitchcock's output during the 40's, such as the earlier "Rebecca" (also with Fontaine) and the later "Notorious", but anyone who enjoys Hitchcock's films in general will likely enjoy this one as well.

Overall Rating: 3 stars (out of 4), or 7 (out of 10)

This is a Hitchcock thriller from 1941, early in his American period, and earned its star, Joan Fontaine, an Academy Award for Best Actress. She's excellent in the leading role, though her performance isn't quite so fine-tuned as the one she gave in the previous year's Rebecca, which this one in many ways resembles. As her gregarious and engaging gambler of a husband, Cary Grant overwhelms her in the acting and charisma departments. This is more or less Fontaine's movie, but Grant steals it with his charm.

The story is is old one about a woman who marries a mysterious and handsome gentleman who's up to his ears in dark secrets. There's not much more to it than that, aside from the little issue of whether or not he's going to murder her for her money. When a close friend of the husband dies under mysterious circumstances, the wife's suspicions begin to literally enshroud her, enveloping her in a haze of nervous expression. Hubby's strange behavior and dark glances don't help matters.

Adapted by Anthony Berkeley and Samson Raphaelson from a novel by Francis Iles, the movie suggests rural England better than most American films; and the supporting cast, which includes Dame May Witty, Cedric Hardwicke, Leo G. Carroll and especially Nigel Bruce, are all fine. Bruce plays Grant's old school twit of a friend, and the scenes of the three of them,--Grant, Fontaine and Bruce--have a rare intimacy, as we really believe that these characters care for one another. The movie's ending was controversial at the time, for a number of reasons. It works well enough for me, but then again Hitchcock generally does.

What kept me intrigued throughout this thoroughly disappointing venture from the Master is apparently precisely what kept it from being genuinely realized at the time it was made. That is that the profoundly charismatic Cary Grant is required to play two wholly contradictory characters simultaneously. Most of the time, this is executed by having him be his light-hearted, jaunty self on screen and learning suspicious things about him when he's offscreen, until a handful of crucial but ultimately anti-climactic moments at and toward the end. Speaking gingerly of which, a crucial aspect of Hitchcock's genius was that he could make movies where something so not only everyday but so kindly as a glass of milk could become a threatening and ominous peril. In Suspicion, it only makes me wish I were watching another Hitchcock film.

Suspicion is about a bashful and unrealistically fragile young woman, played with unseemly melodrama by the otherwise incredibly graceful Joan Fontaine, who marries an enchanting gentleman, only to increasingly suspect him of attempting to kill her. Whatever the truth of the matter should turn out to be, it should be earned through a genuine character arc, not an utterly transparent contrivance rooted in either the audience's unimaginative inability to accept, or the studio's ignorant presumption of the audience's unimaginative inability to accept a likable star playing even a potentially menacing character. Either cast this story in a way in which it can be done, or don't do it. If you have to cheat those of us who are mature enough to undertake it for its authenticity in order to appease those who staunchly prefer you take the easy way out, and you are the Master, I would expect you would be prepared to take your artistic integrity seriously enough to evaluate whether or not you're passionate enough about this material to get it made and, if so, fight for it.

Hitchcock was the leading exponent of Hollywood and, though not to the brash extent of Preminger or Lang, had the ability to smuggle themes and subjects past the censors, constantly trying the perimeters of the Hays production code, as well as portray themes and subjects in ways so uncanny that the only way they register is purely in the minds of the audience. Watch Revenge, the Hitch-helmed first episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, or reflect on the true nature of the relationship between John Dall and Farley Granger in Rope, to see the zenith of this talent. Even here, in Suspicion, he has the unmarried female mystery writer come for dinner with the Haysgarths one evening with a female companion who wears a manly hairdo, clad in a suit and tie. No reference is ever made of who this character even is or why she's even present; she has no function in the story, hence it's plainly cued that she may be the mystery writer's lover.

This is why I can't understand why Hitch could end up with such a compromised, jagged piece like this. I won't criticize it for being light-hearted in tone, because that is what pulls us along, up to a point. By us I mean we the contemporary audience who is so familiar with Hitchcock's sleight of hand, whether or not we were around when he was still presently releasing films, that his ruse is not just a ruse but a way of cluing us into the fact that there is a ruse afoot, that the wool will be pulled from over our eyes in a matter of time, gradually or suddenly. Potentially, there was a great effect that could've been had in Suspicion by luring us with the pretense of a blithe romantic plot before the rug is pulled from under us to find sinister goings-on, almost akin to Oliver Stone's use of genre-linked tone in setting up Born on the Fourth of July. Alas, no such luck. What results is a set-up with no pay-off because various people for various reasons felt we couldn't handle the pay-off.

Charming and entertaining Hitchcock thriller notable for the genre switch.

The film starts out as a romantic comedy, rich girl falls for likeable rogue, but gradually the plot gets darker as Johnnie (Cary Grant) lies and swindles to cover his gambling debts. Eventually Lina (Joan Fontaine) begins to suspect that he is planning to murder her for money....

My only criticism of this film would be the idealised Hollywood version of pastoral English countryside complete with huntsmen, dogs and an eccentric mystery writing spinster. All a little bit too picture-postcard perfect for my taste.

Suspicion has many good things about it. First, Cary Grant plays Johnny Aylesgarth with an appropriate undercurrent of menace/hostility (think of how he talks to Katherine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story). Second, Joan Fontaine does an excellent job of playing the somewhat school-marmish girl who is swept away by Johnny, at least initially. Also, Nigel Bruce plays a great part as Johnny's school-buddy "Beaky".

The problems I have with this movie are as follows:

1. Johnny is supposed to be a "loveable rogue". He gets the rogue part right, but the "loveable" part is not believable. Even given the mores of an earlier era, it seems hard to believe that Lina would have kept taking more of Johnny's lies.

2. The ending is unbelievable. Even if Johnny turns out *not* to be a killer, (the "suspicion" is that he is), the idea of him turning his life around and them living happily ever after is stupid. Johnny has proved himself to be a liar and thief over and over again. I heard that Hitchcock wanted a different ending, but was overruled by the studio. Too bad, as I would have trusted Hitchcock's instincts here.

Everone should watch this film for their "classic" collection, but overall, it is not as good as other Hitchcock offerings, such as Rebecca.

This is one of the least satisfying of all Hitchcock's films. It simply does not hang together as a love story or make sense as a thriller. Cary Grant's rogue is charming and amusing but simply unconvincing as a possible murderer and Joan Fontaine frets, dithers, and whimpers so long and so feebly that no sensible audience would vote to keep her alive past the second reel. In short, the movie simply goes nowhere.

This is simply a directionless film with no ending and not much point. The only good thing about it is the fact that it served as practice to allow the master director to sharpen his skills for far better efforts.

This movie, as with "Spellbound", doesn't seem to be aging very well unlike "Notorious" which remains highly watchable. Some scenes work well, others just labor on. A tighter script would have helped things keep moving along but Hitch apparently liked pictures with long, drawn out conversations. I think that is actually one downfall to his movies being seen today by a new generation. Unless you're a true die-hard fan, some of his movies have a snooze factor built it in, including Vertigo. This doesn't attract new viewers who's attention spans can't go more than a few seconds without seeing an explosion.

There is a lot to like here, and the second half of the movie moves right along. It is unfortunate that Cary Grant's image was such that people wouldn't believe he was capable of murdering his wife. This would have been a much more powerful, and interesting movie if they had.

A shy young heiress marries a charming gentleman, and soon begins to suspect he is planning to murder her.Lina McLaidlaw (Joan Fontaine) is a prim, proper English lady, and Johnnie Aysgarth (Cary Grant) is a suave, charming playboy.

The film is rather slow burning, but it's a fairly solid mix of romance, mystery, thriller and suspense. One of many pairings between Hitch and Grant. In love Joan Fontaine she was robbed of an Oscar for 1940 Hitchcock's " Rebecca ". However the next year 1941 Joan Fontaine gets her due in this film " Suspicion " with her outstanding performance winning the Oscar Best Actress in a Leading Role. While lacking the complexity and excitement of Hitchcock's best pictures, "Suspicion" is still a good example of his ability to keep the audience in lasting suspense. Most Hitchcock fans will want to see it. Thriller with star power

This is another of Hitchcock wartime pictures, when he was really in a transition phase between his British and US periods, with some of the styles of both eras mixed together. He returns to an English setting, but this is moving much more towards the feel of his American pictures.

Hitchcock really gets to develop and splash out on one of his key themes – the red herring. Suspicion is really a film entirely based upon misleading the audience. Then again, upon a second viewing you will see there are as many subtle clues as to the actual ending as there are obvious red herrings. Hitchcock also seems to want to be reminding us of his last film of this type, Rebecca. The set-up of the romance in the first twenty minutes of the film bears some similarities. They even have their honeymoon in Monte Carlo, where the de Winters met each other in Rebecca. This was presumably a deliberate ploy by Hitchcock to make the audience think of the extremely troubled marriage of the earlier film.

A nice Hitchcock touch on display here is his way of starting a scene with a burst of music and a revelation, such as when the two leads take that first walk together, and it suddenly looks as if she is struggling in his arms on the cliff edge. Making a scene burst in like that was pretty daring and unconventional at the time but it really makes the audience sit up and take notice. There are a fair few expressionist touches as well, the most obvious example being the immense shadow of a circular skylight which dominates the Aysgarth's house, and looks like a giant spider's web. Joan Fontaine is consistently shown in long shot dwarfed within this shadow.

I have to confess that neither Cary Grant or Joan Fontaine are actors I'm particularly fond of, but they are well cast here and they do a good job. The real treat though is seeing character actor Nigel Bruce (who had a small role Hitchcock's Rebecca) in a slightly larger part as Cary Grant's bumbling best friend Beaky. He is simply the archetypal jolly, blustering upper class Englishman, and he provides some much needed comic relief.

Perhaps the greatest strength of Suspicion is the way in which the audience is forced to travel with Joan Fontaine and share her doubts and suspicions. Cary Grant comes across as genuinely untrustworthy, and the only one who trusts him is Beaky who is so naïve he actually reinforces the suspicion.

Suspicion is not a bad film. Hitchcock was really beginning to consolidate his style here, especially the part that he referred to as "playing the audience like a piano". But still, it's a minor Hitchcock really. I've never really been sucked in by it. It has all the elements that should make it a classic, but none of them are turned up to eleven, so to speak.

Ah, to be swept up in Cary Grant's arms and never to be let go. That's the heroine's fantasy in this classic Hitchcock suspense film. And who among us would not share that fantasy despite the fact that Grant's character, Johnny, seems to use his impetuous nature to cover up the fact that he's more than a bit shady around the edges.

After all, if you have spent your life being a Plain Jane, and a smiling Johnny (Cary) calls you "monkeyface" with adoration in those handsome brown eyes, why quibble with details? -- Besides, didn't Cary prove that your money is not at the root of his love when he married you anyway even after your father cut off your inheritance because of his suspicions of Johnny.

Joan Fontaine deserved her Oscar in the film's central role. And it has always resounded with me as sort of a personal theme piece --- always having been attracted to men with a bit of a dark side.

Hitchcock's masterpiece and Fontaine's fantastic acting allow you to identify with her thoughts and emotions before she thinks or emotes them. This is an all-time classic.

I didn't dislike this film, although I will admit that many facets are annoying. Cary Grant's Johnnie is too suave to be such a cad, Joan Fontaine's Lina is too smart, attractive, and wealthy to be suckered so easily, the "I love yous" and wedding come far too fast, a lavish and lengthy honeymoon and beautiful furnished house are wholly implausible based on the money at hand... and of course the abrupt and changed ending from the source material is bothersome... but even with all that (and more) the film works as an entertaining feature, because Hitch is a master of making everything unnerving.

While the movie hasn't aged as well as some of Hitchcock's classics, it's still a decent effort and worth a watch. The altered ending IS peculiar and makes one wonder how the original cut might have fared and been judged with the passage of time. Sadly, we'll never know.