Wow! Such a good movie.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Copyright 14 November 1941 by RKO-Radio. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 20 November 1941. U.S. release: 14 November 1941. Australian release: 31 December 1941. 9,135 feet. 101½ minutes.SYNOPSIS: Cad marries heiress. Cad tries to murder heiress. Does he?NOTES: The prestigious Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' Annual Award for Best Actress went to Joan Fontaine. Also nominated for Best Picture (defeated by "How Green Was My Valley"); Music Scoring of a Dramatic Picture (lost to Bernard Herrmann's "All That Money Can Buy")."Suspicion" was number 8 on The Film Daily's annual poll of U.S. film critics. (Mrs. Miniver was first, followed by How Green Was My Valley, King's Row, Wake Island, The Pride of the Yankees, The Man Who Came To Dinner, and One Foot In Heaven).The New York Film Critics voted Joan Fontaine's the Best Feminine Performance of 1941.To win her Best Actress honor, Joan Fontaine defeated her sister, Olivia de Havilland (Hold Back the Dawn), as well as Bette Davis (The Little Foxes), Greer Garson (Blossoms in the Dust), and Barbara Stanwyck (Ball of Fire)."Francis Iles" is the pseudonym of Anthony Berkeley Cox (1893-1970), who also wrote under the name, Anthony Berkeley. "Before the Fact" is generally regarded as his masterpiece. It's a great shame it was not brought intact to the screen, but ruined by a spurious ending.COMMENT: Did Joan Fontaine deserve her coveted award for "Suspicion"? Was she given the award because voters felt she had been unjustly edged out by Ginger Rogers' "Kitty Foyle" the previous year when she should have won for "Rebecca"? There's no question that "Rebecca" is the superior film in all respects. "Rebecca" is one of the finest movies of the forties. "Suspicion" is a cheap cheat.Oh, "Suspicion" is well made all right. Beautifully made in fact. The camera-work dazzles, Hitchcock pulls out all stops and the cast is a wonderful who's who of British character players. Ninety-nine percent of "Suspicion" is an absolute delight. It's unfortunate that all the atmosphere, all the suspense that has been so carefully built up, is ruined by the ending. As Hitchcock himself says: "I'm not too pleased with the way Suspicion ends. I had something else in mind. The scene I wanted, but it was never shot, was for Cary Grant to bring her a glass of milk that's been poisoned and Joan Fontaine has just finished a letter to her mother: 'Dear Mother, I'm desperately in love with him, but I don't want to live because he's a killer. Though I'd rather die, I think society should be protected from him'. Then, Cary Grant comes in with the fatal glass and she says, 'Will you mail this letter to Mother for me, dear?' She drinks the milk and dies. Fade out and fade in on one short shot: Cary Grant, whistling cheerfully, walks over to the mail¬box and pops the letter in.""Suspicion" is a fatally flawed film whichever way you look at it. My advice is to walk out just before the end. That way you can really enjoy it. And there is a lot to enjoy: Grant perfectly cast as the hollowly charming Johnnie, Fontaine (if you accept her performance at surface level) sympathetically effective, Hardwicke, Bruce and Witty contributing their usual, solidly entertaining character studies; Stradling's moodily attractive lighting; Hitchcock's tingling, suspenseful direction.

SUSPICION is exceptionally well directed and photographed, a visually beautiful film, and the acting by the two main leads is of superior quality. I have never seen better from Cary Grant, and Joan Fontaine received her Oscar for this performance (although I preferred her in REBECCA). The supporting cast is also very good.Where things come unstuck is with the script. Aysgarth (Grant) is clearly a thief, a liar, and possibly a murderer, but wife Fontaine is too blinded by her love to see it. I readily accept that love can blind you, but with so much evidence - especially after the sale of her father's much prized chairs - I would have thought that any self- respecting woman would have given him the boot, not least because he does not have a cent to his name.Instead, Mrs Aysgarth recurrently forgives her sinful hubby and, in the process, loses the spectator's respect. The final blow is the studio-dictated ending that basically tells you the rest of the movie is a fib. Pity, Hitch would have deserved better. The greater our loss, too. 7.5 would be my mark, but I can't honestly round it up to 8, so I'm giving it 7.

What can be said to introduce this one. It's yet another smoothly directed, very well acted mystery Hitchcock with a lingering intrigue that baits the viewer from the beginning to the very end. The dialog is great, Cary Grant excellent in his mad-hatter's type role and Joan Fontaine is too beautiful to be described swiftly enough to fit this summary and portrays her worried, eventually tortured character just right.The story holds in one place solidly and coherently but the developments in the plot make this one vary greatly in pace and dynamics. We see just about what's going on in the bigger picture, but there seems to be so much happening behind the curtains - so to speak. The ending, as almost always with this famous director, is of the most expeditious kind. It fits the film, but clearly it is the bulk of the film as a cinematic experience that matters more than its outcome, as seems to be the case so very often with Hitchcock.

Dismissed by critics as "minor" Hitchcock, SUSPICION nonetheless has plenty to recommend it.Set in a chocolate-box English village reconstructed on the RKO back-lot, full of green fields, mock-Tudor housing, hunting scenes and over-stuffed interiors, the film contrasts the stultifying respectability of spinster Lina's (Joan Fontaine's) life with the prospects offered by chancer Johnnie (Cary Grant).Lina lives in a village world where church-going and hunt balls are the highlights of daily life. Her parents (Dame May Witty and Sir Cedric Hardwicke) spend their days in their comfortable living-room, either embroidering or reading the paper. They have no need for excitement: General McLaidlaw (Hardwicke) has enjoyed a distinguished military career and has now retired. By contrast Johnnie, although reluctant to work, as well as being a habitual liar with a penchant for betting, has that indefinable quality called charm (what else would he be, when played by Grant?) Lina understands what a worthless person he is, but cannot detach herself from him. As Johnnie's friend Beaky (Nigel Bruce) tell her, he can be excused anything.The only suggestion that something might be amiss is communicated through lighting. The two protagonists are perpetually photographed with bars - window-bars, blinds, stairwells being three example - either across their bodies or at the back of the frame, suggesting imprisonment. This is both physical as well as emotional: neither Johnnie nor Lina can be honest with one another. As a result Lina continually suspects her husband's motives.There are continual echoes of REBECCA, filmed in the previous year - not only with the presence of Fontaine in the case, but also with the use of stock footage taken on the coast from the cliffs looking down at the sea crashing below. The final sequence, where Johnnie drives his sports car at breakneck speed, putting both his own and his spouse's safety at risk, recalls a similar moment in the earlier film. The endings of the two films are different, but the intertexts remain.There is one memorable sequence towards the film's end, drawing attention to Hitchcock's penchant for the macabre. As Johnnie is abound to climb the stairs, he is photographed in shadow, picked out against a tight column of bright light. Just what his motives are, we know not; but the visual effect is stunning.