zkonedog
When one thinks of Alfred Hitchcock, the "period drama" genre does not immediately come to mind. Unfortunately, "Under Capricorn" does nothing to sway that perception, as (despite some decent character development) it can best be described as ponderous and too full of bloated dialogue.For a basic plot summary, "Under Capricorn" sees Lady Henrietta Flusky (Ingrid Bergman) of Australia struggling to maintain the household of husband Sam (Joseph Cotten). When childhood friend Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) comes for an unexpected visit, however, Henrietta begins to perk up and clash with current housekeeper Milly (Margaret Leighton). Along the way, a great deal of past history among all parties is drudged up.The trouble with "Under Capricorn" is simple: there is absolutely no action/suspense whatsoever. The character development is actually decent, but none of the typical Hitchcock suspense or thrilling sequences are present in this movie. Just too much talking and not enough "doing", in essence.The only redeeming factor for this film whatsoever is some great acting from Cotten, who truly carries this film. Bergman may be a great actress, but her character in this one just isn't all that intriguing. It is Cotten who is a joy to watch scene in and scene out.Put simply, "Under Capricorn" is a slow-moving Hitch effort that just fails to captivate. It isn't terrible, per se, but there is very little excitement involved in the process. Unless you are a huge fan of Victorian-style love stories, or are (like me) making your way through the Hitch collection, I would say you can skip this one.
Lee Eisenberg
When we think of Alfred Hitchcock, we think of suspense: murders in showers, avian attacks, etc. "Under Capricorn" is a different turn for the Sultan of Suspense. Focusing on a love triangle in 1800s Australia, the emphasis is on the relationships between the characters, especially between a new arrival (Michael Wilding) from Ireland and the unhappy wife (Ingrid Bergman) of a businessman (Joseph Cotten). The plot does have a hint of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" but goes in its own direction. While watching the movie I didn't catch Hitch's cameo, which turned out to be more subtle than his more famous ones.The movie's strength lies in Bergman's and Cotten's characters. They play their roles forcefully enough to shock the audience, even though there's minimal suspense. There's a scene with a shrunken head that looks to me as if it may have inspired the notorious horse scene in "The Godfather". In the end I wouldn't call this one of Hitch's greatest movies, but still worth a watch.
Randy Cliff
I've seen over 30 of Hitchcock's productions and there is plenty for everyone. Even so, most people vision his movies as suspense or thrillers or mysteries. Under Capricorn isn't really one of these. It should be compared to something like "Notorious" (1946), which also stars the amazing Ingrid Bergman.Reading other reviews shows a wide split on "Under Capricorn". My wife chose to do chores less than 15mins into the movie. It's a slow start that builds as it proceeds. I had to wonder about the history involved, a screen play written in the 40's based on a book written in the 30's about a man travelling to New South Wales 100 years earlier.Regardless of opinions about the Irish or the Australians, modern historians continue to describe a very real difference about the Nobility of those days and their belief of being truly better than the serving class. I feel that observation helps when watching a melodrama like this, and being able to enjoy it.By their nature, melodrama are life exaggerations, which often come across sad. This left like one of the saddest movies I've watched recently. The situations feel so out place from our reality. But maybe two centuries have isolated us -- Under Capricorn could be simply multiple examples of disparate people trying to survive the best way they know how.This movie left me wanting in the first several minutes, but I found myself getting drawn in. This may not be a movie for the majority to watch over and over, but I recommend everyone watch it at least once.
LeonLouisRicci
Viewers who admire Costume Dramas and Stage Plays are likely to give this Hitchcock Film a pass or maybe even apply accolades. But, in truth, this is really a bore and a chore to get through.It is talky and purposely static in its composition of long takes, for what, who knows. It does pick up somewhat in the final third but by then snoozing Audiences will most likely not notice. It contains stiff performances and has a dull delivery and very slow pacing.Its only appeal is its controversy. Fans of the Director can squabble, and the French gave us their opinion that it is one of the best Films ever made (say what?), and it does have enough curious elements to make it worth one viewing.But be prepared for a long two hours and to top it off, most prints are faded and the glorious Technicolor that some are seeking remains lost in the Forties. So give it a go if you must, but no matter the talent involved it still remains a rather extravagant failure.
AD
