Strangers on a Train (1951)

Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique.

Arguably one of the pioneering "suspense thrillers", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.

But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of "swapping murders" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of "darkness in humanity's heart", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable.

The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker,

Fmovies: This is my first review, and I'm 34 years old. Often I don't agree with the high ratings young moviegoers shower the latest vapid blockbusters, but I understand they love it and they have the right to their opinion. Conversely, I really disliked Strangers on a Train and I feel my opinion is similarly valid. Being in the IMDb's top 250 with a rating of 8+ I approached this movie expecting a masterpiece, but in the end felt feed a bunch of crap.

It started off decently enough, suspense building slowly like I would expect from the genre's master director. But after the first part of movie's unusual premise is completed, things fall apart. The characters' actions don't feel realistic and several scenes made me "wake up" from the movie's universe as they didn't feel real. Also I felt the movie dragged on forever. I was bored, and I can usually endure some pretty non-eventful developments before I get bored.

The end felt fake, phony and completely forced. I felt like I was watching a B horror movie and (almost?) started laughing at how ridiculously bad it all looked.

Maybe at the time the movie was a masterpiece, I don't know. But my rating is made today and I utterly don't recommend it. 4/10.

Top-notch Hitch film dealing with a girl in love with young America's idol , a Tennis star named Guy Haines who becomes involved with a good-looking stranger , Bruno Anthony, in search of sensation that's how it all began..! Warner Bros bring a pounding new tempo to motion picture entertainment. A psychotic socialite (Robert Walker as unforgettable psycho) confronts a pro tennis star (Farley Granger) with a theory on how two complete strangers can get away with murder...a theory that he plans to implement . Guy Haines meets a stranger on the Washington-to-New York train who offers to exchange murders. The stranger will kill Guy's estranged wife if Guy will murder Bruno's hated father. Guy doesn't take Bruno seriously until his spouse , Miriam (Laura Elliott), is found killed in an amusement park . Guy becomes the chief suspect, which threatens his tennis career and his romantic involvement with a U.S. senator (Leo G. Carroll)'s daughter (Ruth Roman) .

Hitchcock first visited Hollywood in 1940, but was turned down by virtually all major motion picture studios because they thought he could not make a "Hollywood" picture. He was finally offered a seven-year directing contract by producer David O. Selznick. His first project was supposed to be a film about the Titanic, but Selznick scrapped the project because he "couldn't find a boat to sink." Selznick assigned Hitch to direct Rebeca (1940) instead, which later won the Best Picture Oscar . Later on , Hitchcock shot ¨Strangers on a train¨.

Tense/suspense/mystery abounds in this thriller from Hithcock who combines the elements of intrigue with romance, drama and action . Thrilling and interesting screenplay based on a Patricia Highsmith novel and co-scripted by novelist Raymond Chandler and uncredited the prestigious Ben Hecht . Robert Walker and Farley Granger give their finest acting as psychopath and tennis star respectively . Hitchock married Alma Reville , usually screenwriter ,and had one daughter, Patricia Hitchcock, who appeared in several of his movies: Stage fright (1950), and Psicosis (1960) and Strangers on the train where she plays splendidly the distrusted sister .Frequent collaborator the director of photography Robert Burks creates a stunning cinematography . Suspenseful and atmospheric original music by the classic Dimitri Tiomkin.

Hitchcock often used the ¨false guilty¨ or "wrong man" or "mistaken identity" theme in his movies Sabotage (1942), I confess (1953), Wrong man (1956), North by Northwest (1959), Frenesí (1972) and of course Stranger on a train . In a lot of his films -more noticeably in the early black and white American films-, he used to create more shadows on the walls to create suspense and tension . Hitch hated to shoot on location , he preferred to shoot at the studio where he could have full control of lighting and other factors. Rating : Above average , well worth watching . This good thriller by the master himself, who preys on the senses and keeps the suspense at feverish pitch . Worthwhile seeing thanks some Hitch's touches .

Strangers on a Train fmovies. Usually, it is the other way around, but in this case, the movie is a major improvement over the original book.

I had seen this wonderful movie at least a dozen times, before I managed to find a copy of the book it was taken from....the book has the same title and was written by Patricia Highsmith.

I scoured the used bookstores for years, before I finally found a copy, and because the movie was SO good, I could not wait to begin reading the story in its original version.

I was never so disappointed!

Not because the book is unreadable...but because Hitchcock made such vast improvements over the book that the book simply does not come close to measuring up to the movie version.

That said, let me now comment on Robert Walker's amazing performance as Bruno Antony.

This was Robert Walker's last completed performance...he died while shooting his final film, "My Son John," in August, 1951.

This role as Bruno was the performance of his career!

Perfect in every way.

The movie has been around now for nearly half a century. I see it every time it is shown on television, and I also watch the tape I have of it occasionally.

Robert Walker's performance only seems to improve with each new viewing.

I can not recommend this movie highly enough.

If Hitchcock and Robert Walker can read me, up there in heaven, let me congratulate them both on an absolutely superlative job!

This is a little known Hitchcock movie but I think it is one of his best. I like how he inserts humor into this crime drama. For example the small boy pointing a gun at the Bruno character at the carnival and the Bruno character popping his balloon with a lit cigarette. And there is the comic scene at the tennis courts where the audience in unison moves there heads back and forth following the ball except for Bruno who glances straight away at the tennis player.

Hitchcock plays suspense masterfully as in the tunnel of love sequence early in the film. We know that Bruno plans to murder the woman and we 'see' that is why he is following her into the tunnel. We hear a scream and think the deed is done when voila! the girl comes sailing out with her two admirers. Then there is one of the finest scenes in all movie history: the final scene on the carousel. Hitchcock manages suspense on many non-stop levels: the two protagonists fighting each other, a small boy who nearly falls from the ride as it whirls at tremendous speed, and the elderly man who crawls beneath the carousel to try and get at the brakes. Although I think the end of the scene was a bit over the top it was masterful to that point and I will never forget it.

I was surprised to see Ruth Roman in the lead. Usually Hitchcock has blondes for his leads, but the commentator on the TMC channel told us Hitch had to use her because she was under contract to the studio where he filmed it.

I highly recommend this obscure Hitchcock masterpiece and give 9.99 out of 10.

"Strangers on a Train" was one of those film classics I had always heard about but somehow never gotten around to actually seeing. I finally watched it a few weeks ago and, as always with any Hitchcock movie, it not only stood up to the test of time, it far surpassed most thrillers being made today. You can see the inspiration for future action movies here - the climactic ending with the out-of-control merry-go-round and the two villains dueling each other reminded me of the big action sequence at the end of Jan de Bont's "Speed." Of course, "Strangers" is over forty years older than "Speed" and contains no modern special effects, but the visceral thrill is there - Hitchcock was a true genius.

The not-so-subtle gay side of Bruno (Robert Walker in an amazing performance) has taken form in many other psycho-stalker-figures in future movies. Consider him a male version of Jennifer Jason Leigh in "Single White Female." He knows about Guy before he even meets him on the train - we almost get the feeling their contact isn't incidental - and is soon entirely obsessed with him.

Hitchcock loved the Oedipial elements in his movies (also see "Psycho" for more blatant undertones) and there's a lot of that here. Bruno hates his father and wants him to die so he can be with his mother. His effeminate ways and obvious homosexuality must have just slipped by the censors in 1951, when gays were not "allowed" to be portrayed on the screen - yet Hitchcock gets the message through effectively when we see Bruno in the lounge on the telephone wearing a very non-masculine robe, flirting with Guy and responding to his mother.

The deep layers of this movie make it a fast-paced thriller than you can return to again and again - unfortunately it's being remade as a big-budget Hollywood production, but after seeing the original I honestly can't imagine anything surpassing the sheer white-knuckle thrills of this movie.