Pretty Good

One of my all time favorites.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Strangely unexciting yet charming movie. Definitely not Hitchcock's best, one can even say that 'Under Capricorn' might belong in great master's few lesser films. Maybe that is the problem - most people probably went into the film expecting typical Hitchcock suspense, but there was very little of that. Even with saying that, 'Under Capricorn' still manages to be entertaining enough and almost two hour run time didn't feel like suffering (by that I mean, at least I didn't force to sit myself through - the film was entertaining). Costume dramas and Victorian soap operas are not Hitch's trademark, and that particular film is only recommended to those who feel the need to see every Hitchcock film, or fans of particular type of melodramatic period pieces.The casting, although all wonderful actors, is off. It needs to have suspense of disbelief to buy the characters as Irish - Wilding sounded like genuine Englishman, Cotten sounded like American, and magnificent Ingrid Bergman sounded like Swede. To put that aside the performances were little above 'just hamming it out' category thus making the film more tolerable.

Is "Under Capricorn" an underrated masterpiece, or a piece of something else? Opinion varies; understandable when you have a great director working so far outside his established milieu.In 1831, Sydney, Australia is something of a cowtown, except with sheep instead of cows, where ex-convicts make a new life for themselves in a rugged land. For one of them, Lady Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman), that life involves many bottles of strong drink wilting away in the care of her stern but loving husband, Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotten). A lifeline arrives in the form of a carefree man from back home in Ireland, Charles Adare (Michael Wilding), who with Sam's suspicious support seeks to restore some of Hattie's old spirit, and give her confidence.Funny how Ingrid always got stuck with Alfred Hitchcock's problem pictures. She never got the easy roles like Grace Kelly. Here, she's caught in a love triangle between two men while adrift in her own secret sorrows. And this time she has more than a bit of drinking problem to boot.Hitchcock lovers may well find "Under Capricorn" too much to take. Hitchcock is working here in the field of historical melodrama, not suspense, and sets himself an unusual hurdle in the form of long continuous shots, a carryover from his prior film "Rope." Some of these are quite masterful, going through walls and floors to capture long dialogues. But as other reviewers note, the absence of a quicker pace does make things tedious after not very long.In essence, as others note, this is a film about characters, not story, and the characters are not easy to like. Sam is the roughest of them, the sort of fellow easy to resent until you realize how deep his feelings for Hattie run. "She'd go at a fence like it had the Kingdom of Heaven on the other side of it," he tells a somewhat bored Charles. Charles' attraction for Hattie is clear - it's Ingrid Bergman, after all - but Sam's deeper love is tangled with jealousy and class resentment.Bergman does the best work, as she always did in the Hitchcock films she starred in, playing damaged goods like she did in "Notorious." "I lived on my will, and my will is exhausted," she tells Charles late in the film, by which time we finally learn the terrible secret that keeps Sam and Hattie miserable even as they remain together.Hitchcock really keeps you guessing as to which man Hattie should take up. You could write books on Hitchcock and love, and run out of pages before you run out of things to say. "Under Capricorn" offers a lot of material to that end. Too bad it struggles so much to tell its tale, decent as it is. There's plenty to admire here, like the technical brilliance of the many tracking shots, the understated supporting work by Wilding (here a cad, albeit with honor), and the exquisite lighting that draws you in like a moth to a flame. But those long tracking shots make one wish for more action.There is some suspense at the end, involving an altercation between Charles and Sam, which is in the end rather silly. There's a sinister maid, played by Margaret Leighton who telegraphs her untoward intentions in every frame so blatantly you wonder why Sam never notices. Running just under two hours, "Under Capricorn" takes much too long to get to the point, then resolves things a tad too neatly than it should.But accepting that this isn't one of Hitchcock's great films is not to say it's unworthy of his name. He directed some poor films, but this has enough going for it in its elegant cinematography (Jack Cardiff's one time working with Hitch) and a luminous Bergman performance, not to mention a strong turn by Cotton. I get why he didn't like the film, as it makes poor Sam too much of a lout in places, but the end result is a solid if secondary work by several name talents worthy of viewing without prejudice.

... as the film really fell under my expectations. "Under Capricorn" is the third Hitchcock's costume drama and the last one. That Hitch never gave a fourth trial says enough, history isn't just his strongest suit.Indeed, Hitchcock is an expert of human emotions and knows more than any director how to convey the most complex and thought-provoking of them in challenging plots, never stingy on twists and surprises, as long as nothing undermines the viewers' attention. Maybe the costumes, the flashy settings all the attention to historical details are too distracting or too time-consuming, maybe people of the 19th century are too exuberant, too solemn or to melodramatic to fit in Hitchcock's universe or to allow him to express his wicked sense of humor and his mastery of suspense. Maybe Hitchcock is too 'modern' for this kind of film.To give you an idea, just look at the positive comments, they all praise the acting, the costumes, the directing, the cinematography… this is not a good sign when a Hitchcock movie is judged on these peripheral and banal elements. Hitchcock movies strike you for two things: action and/or characters and one of them generally makes the film, both in the best ones. When I saw "Gaslight", I immediately came to review my utter disgust toward Gregory Anton, one of the most despicable villains I had ever seen, this is the kind of strong reactions or emotions a film should inspire. But "Under Capricorn" is no "Gaslight".Why do I bring "Gaslight", which isn't even a Hitchcock film, in a review of "Under Capricorn"? I think it's pretty obvious when you saw both movies. "Under Capricorn" had a great potential and a story that promised to be emotionally engaging, no one can endure the sight of poor Bergman being 'gaslighted', not again. Australia wasn't much of an exotic location except for one parameter: the story is built upon the common fact (and not so myth) that many of the first inhabitants were ex-convicts, and after they did their time, they could get back to society and good manners commanded not to ask a man what he's done before. This is a great plot device because from the outsider's standpoint, anyone is suspect.Yet nothing is really made out of that interesting premise. It only serves to hide one secret, the secret of the character we know from the start he's hiding a secret. The exposition takes a long time to present us some characters but their contribution to the plot is so nonexistent you wonder why they were shown to us in the first place. Basically, the film is a seemingly love triangle between Michael Wilding as a young Irish coming to seek fortune, Joseph Cotton as Flusky, a gruff man doing business with him because his past prevents him from buying lands, and his wife Hattie, played by Ingrid Bergman. Unfortunately, none of these three actors can save the film from its long and flat way toward the ending.And I think Hitchcock's fans are intelligent enough to make the difference between drama and thriller, and just from the costumes, they can tell that a film won't be part of Hitchcock's canon. But even by pure dramatic standards, the film doesn't quite work. The main protagonist is an insolent little prick who's so overconfident you want his journey to go through some humility-teaching experiences. None of that, he's as cocky as arrogant in the ending. You expect that the unmasking of the antagonist played by Margaret Leighton will be the result of a suspenseful or at least tense moment; no she is simply caught in the act in the cheapest and most convenient way. I'm not asking for cheap thrills but just action.Drama was the Greek word for action, but "Under Capricorn' might be one of the most talkative movie ever, the plot is only constructed on talks, exchanges and revelations. And the most thrilling moments are immediately canceled off by talking and talking again. This is definitely not a Hitchcock film and while he didn't have a strong reputation when he made "Waltzes of Vienna" and "Jamaica Inn", in 1949, he had so many great movies under his bundle that he couldn't expect "Under Capricorn" to be above people's expectation. Yet the film happened to be ecstatically praised by the Cahier du Cinema French authors, and François Truffaut and Claude Chabrol had the most apologetic words.What did they find in this film? Beats me. But if they're the guys who deemed Clouzot as old-school, you know the closest rival to Hitchcock, it's a wonder how they could blindly adore this film. It is the height of snobbery when you take your adoration to a director as a basis to love whatever he did. Well, Hitchcock who's still one of the greatest directors, was entitled to have a few misfires and this is one of them. You can't praise "Strangers on a Train" and "Rear Window" if you also love "Under Capricorn", it doesn't make sense. Again the film had a great potential, but it was executed as if no one cared to make an impact.And all the costumes and acting in the world can't save a film from dullness; the only interesting thing about it is in the way it makes you wonder how Hitchcock could fail with so many promising elements.

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.