Spellbinding. It's about two (purportedly) gay men, Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger) who strangle a friend to death for the thrill of it. They then hide the body in a trunk just before a dinner party they have which include the victim's family and friends. They also proceed to serve the food on the trunk containing his body. They also invite a headmaster they had at school together--Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) a very cynical individual. As the party progresses Cadell realizes something is very wrong--and is afraid he might be responsible in an indirect way.

Absolutely fascinating. Hitchcock's first color film was also shot in 10 minute takes--Hitch thought it might provide a seamless flow of narrative. After all this was adapted from a play. I think it works very well--it's not distracting at all and the film does move very smoothly. Also he purposedly had the color toned down--he didn't think bright Technicolor was appropriate for the subject matter.

Purportedly Dall, Granger and Stewart's characters were all gay. It's never made clear but it DOES seem like Dall and Granger are lovers (and both were gay in real life) and the script was adapted by a gay man (Arthur Laurents). Also it's based the Leopold-Loeb murders in which two gay men killed a young boy for the thrill of it in the 1920s. So there is a strong gay subtext in the film.

Also there's plenty of black humor throughout. After the murder there are lines like "Knock 'em dead", "killing two birds with one stone", "I could strangle you" and "these hands will bring you great fame". They're actually quite funny and frightening at the same time.

With two exceptions all the acting is good. The two bad performances are by Sir Cedric Hardwicke (he seems to have no idea what he's saying) and Farley Granger. Actually Granger is so bad he provides some unintentional humor! The best acting is by Dall who is absolutely chilling and Joan Chandler (who Hitchcock kept tormenting on the set) as Janet Walker. She has some great lines and gives her all to every one of them. Best of all is Stewart--he doesn't pop up until the film is almost half over and he's incredible. He plays a very cold, cynical intellectual--this is unlike anything he's played before. His acting is very toned down (until the end) but you can see all his expressions through his eyes. This is easily one of his best performances. He hated making the film. For the 10 minute takes Hitch had to design a set which could accomidate the huge cameras. When the camera moved the set walls were designed to go flying up (off camera) so the crew could move from room to room. It distracted Stewart a lot and he couldn't sleep nights.

There's also the VERY impressive cyclorama background of NYC where we slowly see day turn into night.

This is basically all talk but every single line is fascinating. Stewart's lines especially are great and the philosophy described is intriguing. And the gay subtext adds another layer to it--see the looks Dall and Granger exchange once in a while. Actually Montgomery Clift was approached about playing Granger's role but turned it down. He was gay too but wanted to keep it hidden and that role was just a bit too risky.

All in all an absolutely fascinating picture. A definite must-see! It's short too (only 81 minutes). Don't miss this one!

What an unusual Hitchcock film... such a small cast, and the whole film consists of long takes. Before seeing this, I had heard enormously positive things about it... most of them coming from my father, who hadn't seen it for about fifteen years. I had high expectations for the film, but I must say it exceeded them. Though there are only a few cuts in this film, meaning the camera is running almost non-stop, Hitchcock makes great use of it; he manages to fit in many of his trademark angles and closeups in, without it seeming forced. At one point, the camera focuses for a minute and a half on an inanimate object with only one visible character moving back and forth near it, and he manages to drench the cut in suspense, leaving even the most calm and collected of viewers at the edge of their seat, biting their nails. Only the fewest directors could make that sequence work, and luckily Hitchcock is one of them. The plot is great. It's interesting and it develops nicely. The pacing is perfect. I was never bored for a second. The acting, oh the acting... John Dall is excellent as Brandon, the intellectually superior and very smug main character. Makes me wonder why he didn't get more roles in his career. Stewart is great, as usual. The rest of the acting is very good as well. The characters are well-written and credible. For such an unusual film, and despite the heavy feeling of watching a stage play rather than a film, it's very entertaining and effective. If for nothing else, watch this to enjoy Dall as the cold, calculating and manipulative psychopath. I recommend this to fans of Hitchcock and Stewart. 8/10

"Rope" is an interesting experimental film and I can respect what Alfred Hitchcock was able to do with this film--a movie with only minimal cuts and made all within a tiny little apartment set. It was quite clever and watchable...but I think also a bit overrated. Despite its high score and glowing reviews, the film comes off as too obvious--way too obvious. So obvious that you didn't need to invite Jessica Fletcher or Charlie Chan to this dinner party to figure who dunnit! So, when the crime is unraveled by the 'brilliant' professor (James Stewart),it's not exactly a case of super-sleuthing!

The film is a re-imagining of the facts from the infamous Leopold and Loeb case--a true-life incident where two gay lovers killed a fellow student just to feel what it was like as well as for the thrill. Here in "Rope" the story begins as you see the victim begin killed--so this is never in question. But like Leopold and Loeb, these guys enjoyed what they did--particularly the smug creep played by John Dall. And Dall has a flair for the dramatic and decides to throw a party--with the victim hidden inside a chest in the middle of the room--surrounded by people who love him. Dramatic and rather delicious. On the other hand, his lover and partner in crime, Farley Granger, is a very nervous type--and throughout the dinner party he's so incredibly transparent. It's VERY obvious that he and Dall are hiding something--particularly Granger. And that, in my opinion, is what makes this a good but far from perfect film. Anyone with half a brain could see these two are up to something and Dall's repeated pointed remarks about the victim make it obvious they know something about the man who has disappeared....way too obvious. Cocky Dall and wimpy Granger, both lacked the subtlety needed to make this a great film. I know Hitchcock is a bigger than life director, but I just wouldn't place this among his best films (such as "North By Northwest" or "Psycho"). But, on the other hand, it is an interesting experimental film.

By the way, watch Farley Granger's fingers as he's very nervously playing the piano as he talks with Stewart. He's not even close to following the music he's supposedly playing on the piano and the scene probably should have been re-shot. Also, there were a couple plot problems that came up near the end--why didn't Stewart return with the cops when he became suspicious and confronted the pair ALONE and why did Dall just stand there when Granger and Stewart were fumbling over the gun?! And, when the gun when off, why didn't the cops come?! After all, they were in an apartment!! Sloppy and unfortunately too many holes to make it a classic. For me, making the film without showing the murder and having their be some doubt as to the killing would have improved the film a billion times more.

So why, then, is this film so revered? Well, I think part of of it is clearly because Hitchcock has a stellar reputation today. Also, like a few of his greatest films, Hitchcock owned the rights to it and it was withheld from public viewing for decades--thus increasing the mystique surrounding "Rope".