Get_your_azz_to_Mars A minor work from Hitchcock would be a major work for just about any other director of the era. Perhaps it's unfair to Hitch to rate a film like 'The Paradine Case' a 6 or lower, but the bar he set during the 1940's with films like 'Rebecca', 'Shadow of a Doubt', 'Spellbound', and 'Notorious' is so high that one cannot help but be disappointed by this film. Hitchcock reportedly had seriously clashes with producer David O. Selznick during the making of 'Paradine', which may account for its surprisingly banal story and characterizations. Yet there are moments and scenes to admire in 'Paradine':The introduction of Valli's character sums up her tastes, mood, and intelligence all with the visuals and a few, quick lines by her.The first meeting between Peck and Louis Jordan. It provides the first real sense of danger and creepiness to the film. Sadly, the film doesn't continue on this path as it delves into courtroom drama shortly afterwards.Valli's performance is nothing short of marvelous. She doesn't ham it up nor look stilted, she perfectly convenes the sinister and obsessive qualities of her character. She is, without a doubt, the best part of the film.The shot when Jordan first enters the courtroom as the camera slides around Valli's head as it follows Jordan to the witness stand.The high-angle shot of Peck after realizing the case is lost. One of the most jarring cuts in a Hitchcock film that firmly conveys Peck's sense of defeat.So, while 'Paradine' has moments, scenes, and acting to admire and reflect upon, the story itself is rather dull and dragging, negative characteristics that were quite rare in Hitchcock's films of the 1940's.

Patryk Czekaj As much as I have always admired Hitchcock's work, I just couldn't bare the monotony and flatness that surround The Paradine Case. Unfortunately, this film is probably one of the most boring and least interesting of all of the great director's works. The storyline is very slow and simple, and there aren't any spectacular suspenseful moments that he accustomed us to so frequently. Sadly, in times of so many fast-paced and impressive courtroom thrillers and dramas (i.e. Witness for the Prosecution, Anatomy of a Murder, Judgment at Nuremberg) this movie really deserved the bad reputation that it gained in the first few years after its original release.If it weren't for the well-known director and notable movie stars, the movie would probably end up as some long-forgotten B-grade flick that no one would really want to watch.It's a story of forbidden romance, which began between a woman, accused of killing her blind husband, and her prominent defender. This chief motive intertwines with all the events that occur inside the courtroom.The movie started a mindset connected with the notions of feminism. It presents how a woman is able to wrap a man around her finger and make him do everything that she says. She is the strong figure that gives orders, and manipulates all those men, who fall in love with her at first sight.Still, I must say that there are some positive aspects that may be taken from the movie. Definitely, the viewer is able to admire the very decent scenery, set, and costumes shown in the picture.The movie presents a fine insight into the London middle class life. It also depicts, in an inquisitive manner, how the English court operated on a daily basis in those times, and proved once again that all the proceedings, consisting of various twists and revelations, might be thrilling, and can sometimes end up in a very surprising fashion. The acting is on a very high level. Gregory Peck is great as the barrister Anthony Keane, who falls blindly in love with a woman he is supposed to defend with cold blood and full consciousness of the mind, not through heart and emotions. Charles Laughton gives a convincing performance, as the strict, rigorous, emphatic and ironic judge. He is in total contradiction with Peck's character, one might notice. Alida Valli is mesmerizing As Lady Paradine, with all her grace and beauty, which makes it easy to see why every man lusts her and falls under her spell. Ann Todd as the brave and lovable Gay Keane, a wife, who even under the difficult circumstances doesn't give up and lets go of the jealousy.All in all, The Paradine Case looks more like a soap opera designed for TV, not a substantial film directed by one of the greatest director's in history. However, as you watch it, don't concentrate too much on the story, and simply enjoy the precise and entertaining courtroom scenes and the pleasurable subtleness of London's atmosphere.

writers_reign You'll go a long way - though you could make a detour toward Beat The Devil - to find a more disparate and mis-matched cast than this, some of whom - what the hell is someone with the stature of Ethel Barrymore, for example, doing in a supporting role that has absolutely no bearing on the main thrust of the story, other than to add gravitas to the marquee. You could argue that for Hitchcock the late forties/early fifties was his Sinatra period - after early stardom Sinatra hit the skids in the late forties reaching a low point with Double Dynamite and Hitch fared little better with turkeys like this and Under Capricorn in the same period. If you strip it to the bone it's a fairly simple story of a happily married man meeting and falling for a femme fatale and coming out of it badly but for God knows what reason we get a totally superfluous journey to Cumberland and the home life of the judge trying the case - the married man is a trial lawyer, the femme fatale the accused - merely to pad things out. Louis Jourdan, the epitome of the charming Frenchman, is reduced to sullen, wooden brooding and ... oh, why go on, suffice it to say steer well clear of this.

nomoons11 There are quite a few things wrong with this minor Hitchcock work. First off, casting Gregory Peck was a huge misfire. Seeing him try to pull off being an English barrister is kinda painful. It just doesn't work. This was a role before Peck became a superstar so maybe he was just getting his bearings as an actor.It doesn't help that the major issue with this film is o'Selznicks script. He is most certainly not a screenwriter. Some of the dialog and scene changes are so bad it's sad.Towards the end there's a scene where the old judge is sitting with his wife and she tries to talk him out of sentencing the defendant to death and she says something like.."don't find her guilty or sentence her to death, she's had a hard enough life." Are you kidding me? How stupid is that. Girl kills her husband, who did nothing to her, and we should just let it pass? Gimme a break. This is that o'Selznick script writing again. The whole premise of the film is centered around how a high end barrister takes the case of a supposed husband killer and how everyone around him sees him falling in love with her. Within 20 minutes of the film there's already talk about it but there's one problem, there are no lead-ins letting you know its happened. I mean he meets with her twice in prison to talk about the case and there's no chemistry at all.Figuring out why this film was made is pretty simple. Read around online and you'll see the history behind this and right off you know that o'Selznick totally took over this film and therein lies the problem. He totally takes control of the film and just ruins it with bad casting and even worse screen writing. It's like taking a lawn mower mechanic and telling him to go work on a Ferrari. He had no business writing for this work. You can bet Hitchcock was glad to finish out his contract with this minimal work. Seemed like he just phoned this one in to be done with it. Being that this was his last film with this studio and knowing the Hitchcock time-line, you'll notice how after this film is when his best films were made. Hmmmm, I wonder why?Skip this one and save your brain power for a better film...cause this ain't a very good one.