jacobjohntaylor1 This is one of the scariest movies I have seen. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. Charles Laughton was very scary has a murderer. If it does not scary you no movie will. This is a true classic horror flim

Kirpianuscus for Charles Laughton must see this film. for his seductive performance. for his great science to transform a character in an entire story. for the art to give special aura to a film who has not the status of masterpiece. "Jamaica Inn" is a Hitchcock. a version of the book of Daphne de Maurier. a story from XIX century with bandits and the innocent, brave fragile victim. and everything becomes spectacular for the force of an actor to change each scene in a gem. "Jamaica Inn " gives a state more than a credible story. and this is a precious virtue. because it reminds and transforms and imposes pieces of literature in a seductive fragment of old ages.

ElMaruecan82 "Jamaica Inn"'s opening convinced me that I was going to watch something thrilling and spectacular, a heart pounding wreck , a gang of wreckers living no survivors and using the titular inn as headquarters, efficiently preceded by an aura of obscure terror. When the carriage driver refuses to stop at the inn, and leaves Mary, the mysterious stranger from Ireland, a few miles away from her destination, at that point, I thought it would be like Manderlay, a sort of claustrophobic place where any indiscretion can immediately switch to a life-and-death situation Unfortunately, "Jamaica Inn" is in the best case an interesting adventure story with a great villain, except that this greatness cancels out the other characters' appeals, so if it wasn't for Laughton, the film would have been worse... or maybe better. I don't know. What I know though is that it's very difficult to have an objective opinion of the film because it is so unknown that only a Hitchcock fan would be curious enough to discover it, however, only a fan will be biased enough to try to like it. Somewhat it reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Marge's painting teacher is impressed by her work and compliments her, but then he sees a banal sign painter and says "another triumph!". Now, Hitchcock have made more masterpieces than any director with the exception of Kurosawa, that we're ready to find signs of greatness or of his suspense-instinct in every of his early films, but the truth is that "Jamaica Inn" doesn't hold up very well, not by Hitchcock standards, and certainly not 1939 standards. And not to use it as a convenient alibi but didn't Hitch himself disown the film? Wasn't Daphne Du Maurier so displeased that she almost considered withholding her rights for "Rebecca"? Speaking of "Rebecca", Hitch will finally redeem himself by making a Best Picture winner. And despite the one-year lapse, you really feel like there was a whole decade of technical improvement between "Rebecca" and "Jamaica Inn". Now, to Hitch's defense, I just read in Wikipedia that Laughton wanted a bigger screen time and indirectly forced Hitchcock to reveal earlier in the film that the debonair and suave squire he played was the mastermind behind the engineered shipwrecks, and indeed, this would have made for one hell of a middle plot twist and would have kept a shadow of mystery on the character of Pengallan, Hitch wasn't too hot about Laughton's mannerisms because they gave away his vileness, not to mention these horrific and distracting eyebrows. No disrespect toward Laughton but a subtler performance would have served the film instead of depriving it from the one mystery that could have maintained a bit of suspense. So yes, this is not even a Hitchcock film we're to judge, but a Charles Laughton's film. I suspect Laughton wanted to steal the show and pull a "Captain Bligh" in his acting, as his continuous "Chadwick!" (his imperious calls for the poor butler) had the same resonance than "Mr. Christian!" in "Mutiny on the Bounty", and to some extent, it manages to elevate the film to a sort of cult-like guilty pleasure, but Laughton took the lion share of one-liners and memorable moments, so that when you have Maureen O'Hara and Robert Newton, instead of acting like leading characters, they're just the foils to Laughton's Pengallan. Imagine, she's the naive outsider and he's the undercover but we're always ahead of them, so when they discover the truths, there is no surprising effect, worse, the truth doesn't even come from a sign, a scar, a message, anything... Hitch loved signs and rarely indulged to on-the-nose dialogues, but in "Jamaica Inn", revelations are made through straightforward narration, without any form of emotional reward. (And even when comes the biggest shocker, when the aunt is about to give the name of Pengallan, she's shot dead, by -guess who?- Pengallan himself. Hitch wasn't always the most subtle director, but he rarely challenged logic in his work, that he let such a thing happen in the film proves that he didn't care much and just let Laughton makes his show.) The film succeeds in providing the right period atmosphere of the early 18th century, and the action sequences are well-handled, but Hitch was no newcomer at the time and that technical quality was expected from his work, the element where he had to shine was the storytelling, something that relies on the script, the editing, the directing, and there was so much good material to explore: the relationships between Joss (Leslie Banks) and his wife, the identity of Traheme, since Pengallan was always revealed as the villain, the character of Mary deserved more development, but Maureen O'Hara is extraordinarily uninteresting within the film's narrative, even the wreckers had better lines. So overall, "Jamaica Inn" is a disappointingly conventional movie, that throw overboard the only aspects of the plot that could carry some suspenseful elements, and can only provide thrills that consist on escaping from the bad guys, big deal. The best thing about the film though was its climax, with that grotesque sight of Laughton climbing to the top of the masts, and finally jumps to his death, as if the story was deliberately embracing its own zaniness for the sake of making an impact on the audience, let's just wreck the whole thing and have fun with it, and maybe it's the ending that redeems the film, a little. Such a literally over-the-top death was the perfect demise for a larger-than-life villain, as long as he doesn't dwarf the other plays. So, yeah, this is a memorable Laughton's film, but a pretty forgettable Hitchcock. So, atleast, the fans can give the film a 5 or a 6 without feeling too guilty about it.

Armand he is not only the star but the pillar of this Hitchcock without great ambitions movie. the script, the atmosphere, the fragility of story are good supports for him to do a strange, fascinating character exploring each possibility to proof his great art. he is more than the villain but seducer and master of each scene,ideal spice for a film who has little chances to be memorable. so, Laughton is , in fact, ideal tool for Hitchcock genius and the cause for Jamaica Inn to not be only an another film of its director. film of an extraordinary actor, Jamaica Inn has piece from a large adventure series, nice, soft, with each ingredient at its right place, amusing and dramatic, sketch of justice and love.but Lauhton is not only peak , an interesting presence remains Horace Hodges.