Number 17

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?

One of Alfred Hitchcock's British (earlier) movies, "Number Seventeen" shows his touch in many of its interesting and creative details, and it is an entertaining film, although the plot is rather chaotic and often confusing.

The story concerns a vacant house ("number seventeen") on which several different persons converge for various reasons. Most of them are interested in one way or another with a big jewel theft that has occurred, but it is hard to figure out just what everyone is doing there, and it takes a good while before the audience finds out who everyone is and what each of the characters wants. If you watch it over again, you realize that everything does fit together pretty well, but it is quite hard to catch everything the first time through.

The somewhat confusing plot is redeemed by a lot of Hitchcock touches. The gloomy abandoned house makes possible a lot of surprises and atmospheric details, and there is also a fast-paced and suspenseful closing sequence. It's very short, just over an hour, and a lot of things happen during that time. After a rather slow beginning, it gets your attention and keeps it until the end.

"Number Seventeen" probably could have been a much better movie if the plot and characters had been developed more carefully, but it is still pretty entertaining as it is. While probably only of particular interest to those who are already Hitchcock fans, there should be enough of Hitchcock here to satisfy those who are.

During his apprentice years as a director Alfred Hitchcock took all kinds of assignments, many times directing items that originated on the stage like Juno And The Paycock. Number 17 got an increase of ten in the title, it was originally a play written by Joseph Jefferson Farjeon and when it got to Broadway in 1926 it ran for about a month with a cast you would probably not know. The play itself takes place only in the abandoned house where various folks congregate on a dark night. Several are jewel robbers, one is a detective. Just who is who is not really fully revealed until the end.

Hitchcock really liked trains, he did much better with them in The Lady Vanishes and even better than that in North By Northwest. The British film industry was a lot poorer than the American one, but the fact he's using model electric trains in his high speed climax is rather obvious.

With the exception of Barry Jones who played the off balance nuclear scientist in Seven Days To Noon, no one in the cast will be any kind of familiar to the American audience. The story which is always essential to me is really hard to follow. You might take one or two viewings and you still might not get it all right.

That is sad because Alfred Hitchcock was/is one of the greatest and most influential directors of all time. None of his films seen(there are still some to go) are truly awful films but he did make some disappointments. And Number Seventeen is one of them, of Hitchcock's films it is in my bottom 3 along with Juno and the Paycock and Jamaica Inn. But it is a little better than those two, because it actually does feel like Hitchcock, but unfortunately not Hitchcock at his best. The best thing is definitely the climatic train chase sequence, it is very Hitchcockian and is suspenseful, fast-paced and thrilling. The lighting and use of shadows are striking and there is some nice spooky atmosphere going on. Anne Grey is also quite good in her role, the only one of the cast who stands out in a good way. Everybody else in the cast has acting that comes across as stagy and overacted, the character of Ben is very annoying. The editing ranges from erratically jerky to sloppy, making Number Seventeen one of Hitchcock's least audacious films. There are some of Hitchcock's touches like the McGuffin and the final twenty minutes, but there is really the sense that his heart was not in it and that he had little interest in the film. The script has the odd bit of black humour, which is more nice rather than funny, but too much of the script is stilted. The story suffers from being convoluted, things being left underdeveloped and under-explained due to the too short length and pacing that is, especially in the first third of the film(the final twenty minutes is really where Number Seventeen really comes to life), as creaky as nearly broken floorboards. Overall, Number Seventeen is far from truly disastrous but a disappointing misfire for the Master of Suspense. 4/10 Bethany Cox

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