JohnHowardReid Alfred Hitchcock induced Chandler to break his self-imposed exile from Hollywood for Strangers on a Train (1951). Here we have another screen classic - like Double Indemnity - for which Chandler is not given due credit. Part of this lapse is due to Hitchcock himself who, in later interviews, constantly derided Chandler's contribution. "The work he did was no good," good old Hitch complained to many a celebrated critic. But despite the Chandler script's supposed lack of quality, super-indulgent old Hitch had used it anyway. Adapted from a Patricia Highsmith story, the Chandler hand is evident not only in the inward-twisting plot and contrastingly classy and gaudy atmosphere, but in the tensely nervy and often cynical dialogue, - and even more particularly in the characterization of the festeringly bizarre but remarkably personable psychopath so brilliantly played here by Robert Walker.

jc-osms After four box-office failures and with the dawn of a new decade, there must have been some pressure on Hitchcock to deliver a hit again. That he did, and then some with this tour-de-force which in fact set the standard for the rest of the decade where he consistently delivered great movies and consolidated his reputation as the Master of Suspense.It helps of course when the source material is good, this time from a writer of the calibre of Patricia Highsmith and while Raymond Chandler may not have contributed too much for his co-screenplay credit, this movie has a particular drive and energy which had certainly been lacking in his recent movies. It may have lacked A-list acting talent but Farley Granger and in particular Robert Walker step up admirably with memorable performances so good you can't imagine anyone else in their places.The idea of twin murders is a delicious one which holds the movie together all the way through particularly after Walker's Bruno casts the first stone with the murder of Granger's loose, grasping but hardly deserving wife. The extended scene of his stalking her at a night-time fun fair culminating in a brilliantly rendered strangulation reflected in the victim's own detached spectacles is just one of many magisterial flourishes from the Master but there's much more such as the shot of Bruno gazing single-mindedly at Granger's Guy Haines playing a tennis match while everyone else is following the ball going back and forth over the net, the later cross-cutting of Bruno striving to retrieve Guy's lighter which he's accidentally dropped down a drain en-route to planting it at the murder scene to frame him contrasted with Guy frantically trying to win his tennis match and of course the suitably dramatic climax aboard (and under!) a crazily out of control merry-go-round.As stated, Walker is superb as the suave but deranged Bruno, with his flamboyantly monogrammed tie-pin and floral dressing gown bringing a homo-erotic edge to proceedings while Granger is almost as good as the innocent caught up in his nemesis's machinations and yet bearing guilt for getting what in his secret heart he really wanted. There's solid support too from Ruth Roman as Haines' new love, the ever-dependable Leo G Carroll as her senator father and perhaps surprisingly Hitchcock's own daughter as Roman's younger sister who bears a striking resemblance to Haines' bespectacled doomed wife.From the introductory criss-crossing of feet and railway lines to that mad smash-up finish at the carnival this is the ultimate cinematic white-knuckle ride.

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