Nice! This is actually my favorite Hitchcock film. The suspense and story are are great and technical it is an impressive achievement. It was also the first film that Hitch shot in color.

This is my favorite Hitchcock film as well. And I just love Jimmy Stewart in it, playing a very different kind of character than he did before he'd been in the war. (In film school we discussed pre- and post-war Stewart extensively; an interesting topic if anyone ever wants to look into it.)

Very nice review, Mat - you give me at least four excellent reasons to buy this DVD.

Nice review Mat on a great Hitchcock film. I have always enjoyed Rope, though consider it the third-best collaboration between Hitchcock and Stewart. It is a technical wonder, and I too have noticed the lighting in background windows and have marveled at its detail. I believe the play is thinly based on the Leopold-Loeb murder case from the 1920s. Another film was made on the same subject matter in 1959 called Compulsion, with Bradford Dillman and Dean Stockwell as the murderers, and Orson Welles as the investigator. But Rope is far more interesting.

It's a technically interesting movie. The problem is that the technique is completey unjustified by the story.

Thanks for the nice comments. On the contrary, Rodney, I think the technique is completely JUSTIFIED by the story. It is set in one room and plays out in real time (more or less) so why should their be a bunch of cuts? It is also based on a play, and the technical choices make this movie roll out like a play. Why do you think it is unjustified.

The only impeccable aspect of this rather appalling period piece is John Dall's and Farley Granger's tailoring--those suits are to die for! John Dall was quite successful as the waspish gay guy and Farley a perfect foil as the wavering emotional "weak sister" of the pair. How anyone could mistake them for straight is hard to fathom.

"It is set in one room and plays out in real time (more or less) so why should their be a bunch of cuts?"

I can just as easily turn it around and say "Why shouldn't there be a bunch of cuts?" The fact that it's in real time is a very thin justification for the one-take method. The real trick of pulling off a long take is for it NOT to be noticeable; like, say, in a Preston Sturges film, or in several of Kubrick's films, like "Paths of Glory" or "Full Metal Jacket." In those cases, the long uninterrupted take focused attention on the character or ratcheted up the tension -- which it clearly did not do in "Rope." What little tension "Rope" has to offer is in the story or the actors, not the camera. In fact, the long take technique in "Rope" mainly serves to show how slim the story is. I think the best thing that can be said of "Rope" is that it showed Hitchcock what it took to film a story in a single room over an extended period of time -- an experiment that bore extraordinary results in "Rear Window."

Man, you guys are going way back. I've only seen this movie once, and that was when I reviewed it, nearly two years ago. So I'm not sure how good my memory will serve for the discussion, but we'll see.

Although I must say that my first paragraph is waaaay too long.

cmeza, why do you say it is appalling? I rather enjoyed the film, I recall, though unlike you I can't say I thought much about the costumes. Though, admittedly, I don't ever think much about costumes.

I won't argue your point, Rodney. I'm not sure what real purpose making it all look like one take really served other than being an experiment for Hitchcock. 24 has certainly proven that you can make a show in real time with lots of cuts and still maintain a lot of tension.

But within the confines of this story it still seems very strange to make a few very obvious cuts when they've taken so much trouble to hide the others.