Pjtaylor-96-138044 Its admittedly thrilling, if visually ageing, finale is a little silly compared to the rest, but this Hitchcock classic is a true staple of the Noir genre with a killer performance from Robert Walker and a simple premise pushed to its perfect peak. 'Strangers On A Train (1951)' has been reinvented, twisted around and straight-up redone more times than you can count, but this remains as thoroughly entertaining now as it ever was and a real reason why some things just shouldn't be remade. It isn't Hitchcock's best, but sits comfortably in his repertoire and is a suitably gripping film. 8/10

aristotelis-44899 If there was an Oscar category for making zero sense what so ever this Hitchcock dud should be a sure winner.A list of plot absurdities: 1. What if the hero had a solid alibi? If an alibi was threatening the plan, how the antagonist secured that the hero lacks an alibi before executing murder #1? 2. Actually an alibi should be essential in a murder exchange scheme otherwise there was no need for the exchange; also once the antagonist executes murder #1 the hero should be free from police scrutiny to execute murder #2 and that necessitates an alibi. But another compelling enforcement mechanism of the deal would be needed. Threatening to plant the lighter does not count as a viable plan because (a) it was obtained by the antagonist by accident, and (b) the hero could notify the police that his framing was underway. Either way you cut it, it makes zero sense. 3. Convenient but implausible doppelganger pair sister- in- law / wife. But what is the purpose anyway? So that the antagonist has a fainting spell in the middle of an absurdly implausible strangulation play acting in a high society party? major "what the heck?" moment 4. Play-tennis-and-win-quickly as part of strategy to rush to prevent incrimination? Ridiculous 5. Police not suspecting 2 boyfriends of victim; insane 6. Police not learning that 3rd man was spotted by boyfriends and crew + description of man not matching hero; more insane 7. Hero (if not an idiot) should have worked with police to trap antagonist 8. Merry go round that can develop deadly speeds or does not have a remote fail-safe switch. Hmmmm. 9. Shooting the merry-go- round without any reason whatsoever while said merry-go-round is full of innocent bystanders, especially children. Most absurd single thing in the movie. Maybe of the decade as far as stupid plots go. 10. Crawling under speeding merry-go-round instead of cutting power supply from a safe distance. Crazy. 11. By the way how the heck did they film and light the crawl? And using a civilian to do a deadly stunt instead of a stuntman? What were they thinking? 12. What would be justification to the police of antagonist for trying to kill hero on the merry-go-round? how the antagonist would justify even being at the park? 13. The antagonist trying to incriminate the hero while dying by absurdly denying possession of lighter instead of saying something like "I did what you asked me to do and killed your wife; if you should have kept your part of the deal as we had agreed we would be both fine now". That statement would have been impossible to refute in a court of law and would likely be sufficient evidence to convict.Overall, an intellectually insulting film viewing experience...

capone666 Strangers on a TrainThe perfect murder is any murder you can commit on a Sunday wearing your favourite pair of Crocs. However, the strangers in this thriller have a different idea of an idyllic homicide.Guy (Farley Granger) wants to leave his wife Miriam (Laura Elliott) and marry his mistress (Ruth Roman). Bruno (Robert Walker) wants his father dead. The two randomly meet on a train and agree to take care of each other's problems.While Bruno holds up his end of the bargain, Guy backs out on his. Infuriated, Bruno goes to plant evidence at the amusement park where he strangled Miriam, unless Guy can stop him. One of Alfred Hitchcock's most revered works, this redrafting of the 1950s bestseller remains a visual landmark to this day. Meanwhile, Raymond Chandler's hardboiled script retains its dark, relatable qualities.Moreover, it reminds us that strangers are just friends we haven't committed murder for yet. Green Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

ags123 Hitchcock is clearly in his element adapting Patricia Highsmith's quirky novel to the screen. Here again we have a wrongly accused man out to expose the true culprit while attempting to elude the police. However, this time, the hero is not entirely innocent. And the villain is irresistibly charming. Add to that a subtle homosexual undertone making for an engaging and suspenseful film. Robert Walker steals the show in what was a complete reversal of his wholesome image. Also outstanding is Patricia Hitchcock as the wise and witty voice of reason, the most extensive of her roles in three of her father's films. Ruth Roman, culled from Warner's contract players and heavily promoted at the time, is a rather weak link, not the typical Hitchcock blonde, and far too uptight and affected to be convincing as unassuming Farley Granger's love interest. Minor characters - Leo G. Carroll, Marion Lorne, Laura Elliott - excel at adding depth to the story. Of note is the costume design: Bruno's rakish dressing gown has appeared in various Warner Bros. productions, seen on Monty Woolley in 1942's "The Man Who Came To Dinner" and on Milton Berle in 1949's "Always Leave Them Laughing."