Number 17

The plot of this early Gothic/comic thriller by Hitchcock will make your head spin. It is about as convoluted as possible, with multiple cases of mistaken identity, role-switching, cons and counter-cons. A detective has gotten a lead on a very expensive necklace which has disappeared, and expects to find it, along with the perpetrators, in an old, somewhat decrepit house. A couple of innocent bystanders wander in and find one of these characters knocked unconscious, and the rest eventually begin to pour in through the front door bit by bit, or through the ceiling, as the case may be.

Eventually, the entire cast will end up in a mad chase between a runaway train carrying the bad guys and a bus commandeered by the good guys (or so it seems).

Thoough not one of Hitchcock's best early films, Number 17 is certainly amusing and contains a lot of intentional comedy that many critics seem to want to ignore, keeps a steady, if hectic, pace and boasts some pretty affective use of miniatures for the 1930s. Recommended for fans of pre-noir thrillers and British comedy.

After seeing "Blackmail" and "Murder" I wasn't expecting very much of "Number Seventeen". I was very pleasantly surprised. It's certainly not up to the standard of Hitchcock's later work, but it's a moderately enjoyable film both in itself and for the insight it offers into Hitchcock's development as a director.

The plot is rather complex and can be a bit difficult to follow at times. But nearly every element - concept, plot, characterization, and so forth - is superior to his earlier work. There are some action scenes toward the end that are strikingly exciting for a movie from 1932. My favorite part of the movie, however, is the first third or so, where Hitchcock achieves a perfect "spooky old house" atmosphere.

If this were a long movie, I would hesitate to recommend it to anyone but Hitchcock fanatics. But it's only 63 minutes - if you can find it, take the hour and watch it. At worst, you'll learn some things about Hitchcock's developing technique. At best, you'll discover a highly enjoyable little movie.

Early Alfred Hitchcock film that finds a bunch of criminals gathered at a house following a jewel robbery. Hot on their tail is a detective and as the tension mounts and suspicion begins to take a hold, it unravels that all is not as it at first seemed.

Hitchcock didn't want do do it, he got lumbered with it, and later in his career he would remark that the film was a disaster. While that statement is not exactly true, it is a bit of a mess of a film, but such is Hitchcock's standing in cinema, we can now view it and appreciate some nice touches whilst acknowledging it's an odd blend of chaos and drama. First two thirds is set in one darkened house full of shadows, suspicious characters and creaky dialogue. There's impressive expressionistic photography to enjoy, which is good since nothing makes much sense and it's so murky it's hard to follow the plotting. Then the story breaks out to become a pursue and chase thriller, where a number of vehicles enter the fray with a mix of models and footage blended together for desired exciting effect. Then on to the reveal and it's end credit time. Wrapped up neatly in just over an hour.

The good moments make it worth the watch, especially for Hitchcock fans who get a little taster of what would come from him further down the line. But it isn't essential Hitchcock viewing and ultimately the great director's displeasure with it says far more than any critical reviews can. 5/10

For starters, I think the proper context for evaluating this film would be: 1932 thrillers. And judged against its competition, this film ain't so bad. Hitchcock overdoes the mood, and there were times when I was tired of the frightening shadows cast upon walls by unexplained light sources. Characters holding candles, for instance, would throw full-body shadows upon walls, and the movements of those shadows would be exploited for mood effect.

But the movie isn't as terrible as its cruelest critics suggest. The early thirties in England blurred distinctions between stage and screen, and the stage qualities of the film are quite strong. You have to imagine that you're watching a play, perhaps in the West End, with a cast of aging Victorian and Edwardian actors, in order to get the full context of this film.

If you are only capable of watching modern Hollywood movies, or if you can only evaluate film in the context of E.T. and MTV, then by all means stay away from this film. On the other hand, if you like early films, black and white film, silent movies, and moody thrillers from the 20s and 30s, then this film is quite good. There are unexplained details, yes, but watch the film nonetheless. It won't damage you, as other viewers have suggested. The hour of your life will not be wasted: you will have gained an understanding of the important link between film and theatre, between screen-acting and stage-acting, and you will have a more full understanding of Hitchcock's background.

Besides, I dare you not to be drawn into the plot near the middle of the film. Halfway through, you realize: Not a single one of the characters has been contextualized properly, and any one of them could be lying about their identities and reason for being in the empty house. Some have faulted this as a "problem" in storytelling -- but I would suggest that it's what creates the suspense. You are interested in the story because of the unexplained. Stop complaining, eh?

This might just be a problem with only me, but I tend not to be able to clearly hear some of the speech of the actors in old movies like this. It could be that the film is old or the actors don't annunciate(not sure if I spelled that right) enough. Overall, the film is like what the other reviewer said: slow at first, but once you know generally what is happening, it draws you in immediately. Also, this is one film that I demand to be remade, for it looks quite dated in some parts, even a little cheesy. Another reason is that this movie should be given a wider audience. It deserves it. The remake might have to be a bit longer, though, since I'm not sure how a modern crowd would feel about paying money to see only a 63 minute movie. In summary, see this to be entertained but prepare to be forgiving for the, shall we say, "time gap."