The Paradine Case (1947)

Overrated and overhyped

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Absolutely the worst movie.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

"The Paradine Case" isn't Alfred Hitchcock's best movie by any stretch but still worth seeing. It probably would've been more believable had they cast an actual English person in Gregory Peck's role. The best scenes are of course the ones in the courtroom. The suspense really builds in those scenes. The only scene that I saw as having a double meaning was the scene where Keane goes to the estate and meets Latour for the first time. Latour's face is obscured, as if to imply that there's something unknown about him. But without a doubt, the last twenty minutes are what truly make the movie.In the end, it's OK not great. Given the high standards that we place on Hitch, it's understandable that not every one of his movies will be a masterpiece ("The Birds" is my favorite of his movies). Still worth seeing.

Hitchcock and Selznick's Paradine Case is a pretty basic nut to crack in terms of the premise - a woman accused of murder (in Hitchcock, no way!) and in this case it becomes a law & order scenario with the defense attorney doing the detective work.There are some excellently written and directed courtroom scenes, when it actually gets to the courtroom mostly. Ironic, of course, that the story is really about the characters more than the plot; somehow the details of the story, how the characters talk about them (or don't, leaving things out or floating in the air) brought me in more than anything of the "love" portions.But the main core of the melodrama is that Anthony Keane (supposedly) falls in love with Mrs Paradine, and I just don't buy it. We're told by the character that he's fallen in love with her. Why? After so short a time? It may be because there's so little chemistry between the two actors - Alida Valdi is playing a cold femme fatale, and within her own dimensions does a decent job, especially in her early scenes, while Peck varies between not so much stiff but bland and trying to reach up to a certain dramatic height that he only gets to occasionally in the courtroom. The spark just isn't there with the actors; if there was just the hint of danger between the two, of temptation, it might work. But there isn't.Ann Todd - who, unlike, Peck and Valdi, was Hitchcock's first choice - actually has more chemistry with Peck as husband and wife together, though only gets one meaty monologue (which is cleverly pointed out by the character as to be a 'speech'), though it only goes so far and still makes her a 'type'. Still, there's enough to make it engaging for the points of a mystery whodunit, and a little Charles Laughton goes a long way (he has two memorable scenes, and one where he kinda sorta has a friendly chat with Todd is maybe the most darkly funny and weird scene of the movie, the most 'Hitch' in his way).All the same, it shouldn't seem mysterious as to who really 'dun' it, and that's not here or there. At the same time, it's not hard to see where Selznick likely meddled in the director's attempts to make this more compelling and curious - he stifles several scenes potential for the easy way out, including the music score (why oh why couldn't they get Herrmann) and that ending scene. To be sure, there are some shots that work and break out of the stodgy story beats, and some that don't (and most baffling is seeing filmmakers like this break the 180 rule with the camera at one point, and for no reason other than incompetence).What's missing from the Paradine Case seems to be some sense of general levity to offset how (melo)dramatic the rest of the story is, a key trait to the gift of Hitchcock's ENTERTAINMENT. Whether that was also lost by Selznick it's hard to say. The most crippling thing to an otherwise good movie is a somewhat by the numbers feel, though I still recommend it (slightly) for the watchable second half, and oddly dark Louis Jordan performance.

most of all, a very unnatural and again, very pretentious movie. the whole film just looked so badly scripted. watching it was like watching those characters on a staged theater. the poor dialog had forced every one in this film to act awkwardly and again, very pretentiously. peck's performance was one of the worst in his career. the young wife of the attorney already slept in a separate room. why all the couples in most of the films came out of that era were without any kids? why this specific director always wanted to show himself in all the films he directed as a passersby, a non-described person? and he walked out of the Cumberland train station this time. this film storyline was so flat and boring with a terrible scenario and plot, and the courtroom part was extremely boring too. there's nothing to be praised, no wonder it's been overlooked so far.

There are quite a few things wrong with this minor Hitchcock work. First off, casting Gregory Peck was a huge misfire. Seeing him try to pull off being an English barrister is kinda painful. It just doesn't work. This was a role before Peck became a superstar so maybe he was just getting his bearings as an actor.It doesn't help that the major issue with this film is o'Selznicks script. He is most certainly not a screenwriter. Some of the dialog and scene changes are so bad it's sad.Towards the end there's a scene where the old judge is sitting with his wife and she tries to talk him out of sentencing the defendant to death and she says something like.."don't find her guilty or sentence her to death, she's had a hard enough life." Are you kidding me? How stupid is that. Girl kills her husband, who did nothing to her, and we should just let it pass? Gimme a break. This is that o'Selznick script writing again. The whole premise of the film is centered around how a high end barrister takes the case of a supposed husband killer and how everyone around him sees him falling in love with her. Within 20 minutes of the film there's already talk about it but there's one problem, there are no lead-ins letting you know its happened. I mean he meets with her twice in prison to talk about the case and there's no chemistry at all.Figuring out why this film was made is pretty simple. Read around online and you'll see the history behind this and right off you know that o'Selznick totally took over this film and therein lies the problem. He totally takes control of the film and just ruins it with bad casting and even worse screen writing. It's like taking a lawn mower mechanic and telling him to go work on a Ferrari. He had no business writing for this work. You can bet Hitchcock was glad to finish out his contract with this minimal work. Seemed like he just phoned this one in to be done with it. Being that this was his last film with this studio and knowing the Hitchcock time-line, you'll notice how after this film is when his best films were made. Hmmmm, I wonder why?Skip this one and save your brain power for a better film...cause this ain't a very good one.