|
Strangers on a Train | 
 enlarge | Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Actors: Leo G. Carroll, Farley Granger, Patricia Hitchcock, Marion Lorne, Ruth Roman
Studio: Warner Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy New: $7.61
You Save: $7.37 (49%)
New (47) Used (17) Collectible (2) from $4.95
Rating:  124 reviews
Sales Rank: 5968
Format: Closed-captioned, Full Screen, Black & White, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), French (Original Language), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Subtitled)
Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
DVD Layers: 1
DVD Sides: 2
Picture Format: Academy Ratio
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 101 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: WARD15324D
ISBN: 0790731029
UPC: 085391532422
EAN: 9780790731025
ASIN: 0790731029
Theatrical Release Date: July 3, 1951
Release Date: June 11, 1997
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand new Item. CD, DVD, Book, VHS more than 400 000 titles to choose from. ALL days Low Price !
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com essential video
From its cleverly choreographed opening sequence to its heart-stopping climax on a rampant carousel, this 1951 Hitchcock classic readily earns its reputation as one of the director's finest examples of timeless cinematic suspense. It's not just a ripping-good thriller but a film student's delight and a perversely enjoyable battle of wits between tennis pro Guy (Farley Granger) and his mysterious, sycophantic admirer, Bruno (Robert Walker), who proposes a "criss-cross" scheme of traded murders. Bruno agrees to kill Guy's unfaithful wife, in return for which Guy will (or so it seems) kill Bruno's spiteful father. With an emphasis on narrative and visual strategy, Hitchcock controls the escalating tension with a master's flair for cinematic design, and the plot (coscripted by Raymond Chandler) is so tightly constructed that you'll be white-knuckled even after multiple viewings. Better still, the two-sided DVD edition of this enduring classic includes both the original version of the film and also the longer prerelease British print, which offers a more overt depiction of Bruno's flamboyant and dangerous personality, and his homoerotic attraction to Guy by way of his deviously indecent proposal. In accordance with the cautious censorship guidelines of the period, Hitchcock would later tame these elements of Walker's memorable performance by trimming and altering certain scenes, so the differences between the original and prerelease versions provide an illuminating illustration of censorship's effect on the story's thematic intensity. Beyond all the historical footnotes and film-buff fascination, Strangers on a Train remains one of Hitchcock's crowning achievements and a suspenseful classic that never loses its capacity to thrill and delight. --Jeff Shannon
Product Description
A loner and a tennis star meet on a train and discuss exchanging murders but soon fantasy becomes reality. Includes both u.K. And u.S. Endings. Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 02/14/2006 Starring: Farley Granger Robert Walker Run time: 101 minutes Rating: Nr
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 119 more reviews...
 3.5 stars out of 4 December 20, 2008
One-Line Film Reviews (Ann Arbor)
The Bottom Line:
An absolutely spiffing thriller with a great performance by Robert Walker as the psychopathic Bruno and one heck of an ending, Strangers on a Train is one of Hitchcock's better pictures.
 The follies of censorship... November 10, 2008
Andrew Ellington (Mulholland Drive)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I'm going to yell SPOILERS right off the bat, just in case anyone deems my breakdown of this film to be ruining the surprise for anyone.
I want to say that when I first saw this movie I really loved it; in fact it was my favorite Hitchcock film at the time. I thought that it was suspenseful and chilling and hit all the right notes. Sadly, I was so enthralled with the film that I decided to seek out the novel, written by Patricia Highsmith. Once I read the novel my opinion of the film was drastically altered and I had to watch the film yet again. The second viewing was far inferior to the first, for I realized that Hitchcock had not presented an accurate and respectful representation of Highsmith's novel.
Now I have raised kain with regard to film adaptations before (see my ranting on the film `Less than Zero' and `American Psycho' for starters) and I have mentioned before that a director can take liberties with a novel as long as they stay true to the intentions of the author. Once you shift the focus too much (`Less than Zero' is probably the strongest example of a director getting everything wrong) you lose the authors vision. Many could look at this statement and say "then why did you give a film like `The Shining' such a high rating?" Well, the answer (as I mentioned in my review of the film) is that Kubrick created his very own vision, while still staying true to King's vision. Sure, he altered events, at times even drastically, but there is no denying that it was King's source material.
That brings me to `Strangers on a Train'. There are many alterations made within this film, liberties taken that drastically shift the intentions of Highsmith's vastly superior novel. Some of the changes are subtle and seemingly `no big deal', but in the big picture they become a very big deal.
The first change I noticed came in the form of Guy's occupation. In the novel he is an architect, but in the film he is a tennis player. He is famous, widely known and successful. In the novel he is just starting to spread his wings. It may seem like nothing big really, and in the beginning Hitchcock handles it well (he may have used a celebrity status to make it easier to fall into conversation with Bruno) but as the film progresses some of the major plot points, that made more sense when Guy was `not so well known', seem to get jumbled. The fact that Bruno blackmails Guy into following through with their `plan' is much more believable when you consider Guy's situation within the novel. He is dependant on the divorce and his wife's separation from his name and so her murder is much more necessary and the fear of losing everything he's been working so hard for, including his newfound relationship, takes on a person all its own. His celebrity status in the film dampens this a bit because there is really no fear of failure; he seems impenetrable really.
The next change was much more noticeable to those who have read the novel, and that is the `relationship' between Guy and Bruno. In the novel it is very obvious that Bruno is in love with Guy, and his actions, as disturbing as they are, are really a way for him to get near to him. It's reminiscent of the way Tom Ripley attached himself to Dickey Greenleaf in `The Talented Mr. Ripley'; using savagery as a sense of companionship. Hitchcock did try and incorporate this into the film but censorship laws prohibited this and forced Hitchcock to make alterations to his film that left this facet of the story out completely. This is sad, because this seemingly small detail adds so many layers to the story.
The biggest and most noticeable change was (here's the big SPOILER) the decision to have Guy back out of his end of the bargain. In the novel Guy attempts to go through with the murder, but here he completely backs out. That change alters the entire ending of the film, throwing Bruno and Guy into a battle of wits as they turn on one another. The novel's handling of their relationship is far more gratifying than the one Hitchcock concocted. I should have know that Hitchcock would not have wanted to keep Highsmith's original ending, for it just does not feel like something the master of suspense would want to do, but I wish he had, for his talent would have really done something special with Highsmith's intelligent conclusion.
Okay, so this is my critique of the films construction.
But there is more.
The acting is, for the most part, very good and so it does elevate the film for me. In fact, the only sore spot in my opinion was Farley Granger who played Guy. I felt that he was a little too stiff for the part and lacked any real emotional impact. Robert Walker was flawless as Bruno, and I hear that his performance is even greater in the uncut version for he is allowed to devour the character to a fuller degree. Ruth Roman and Kasey Rogers have great scene stealing turns here as the two women in Guy's life, and Marion Lorne adds a few layers to Bruno's character as she eats up her portrayal of Bruno's mother.
Sadly, the film does not live up to its source material. The fact remains that as a thriller and as a Hitchcock film it is actually really good, but when you compare it to Highsmith's novel (which I can't help but do now that I have read it) it falls short.
My Favorite From Hitch October 20, 2008
S. Niduaza (San Francisco)
'Strangers on a Train', in my opinion, is the quintessential Hitchcock film-perfect acting, music, visuals and pacing. It is also one of the first films where I found myself rooting for the bad guy (and dreading his truly creepy mother and their even weirder relationship). Even the opening scene, where Hitchcock puts the focus on the two main characters shoes, is poignant and clever. I've also often wondered how he was able to shoot the final scene on the merry-go-round, it is simply pure movie magic. Highly recommended to any film fan.
 Overlooked September 18, 2008
Cosmoetica (New York, USA)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
Strangers On A Train, the 1951 black and white film by Alfred Hitchcock, is a damned good movie- with many of the requisite Hitchcockian flourishes, but it is not a great film, despite many great aspects about it. The reason for this devolves down to one basic fact- it's merely a melodrama, not a true drama. Melodrama always depends upon the propulsion of the plot by the characters within doing the dumbest possible things to get to the next scene. Melodrama thrives on the lowest common denominator. This, of course, does not lessen the enjoyability of the melodrama- be it Hollywood film, soap opera, pro wrestling, etc., but it does remove the work sufficiently from the realistic so that it shows its artifice too much, and therefore never fully involves an engaged viewer.
Strangers On A Train includes many recurring Hitchcockian themes- the wrongly accused man, doubles, guilt, assumptions, and, yes, homosexuality. This was a film that came out only a few years after Hitchcock's homosexually themed Rope, in 1948, and even has one of that film's stars- Farley Granger, in this film's lead role. Again, he is a weakling character controlled by a cunning, psychopathic character with definite homosexual leanings; only this time Granger does not play a homosexual character. The film was based upon the first published novel of Patricia Highsmith, whose later Ripley novels earned her the nickname Mistress Of Suspense, in counterpoint to Hitchcock's moniker as Master Of Suspense. The film was adapted for Hitchcock by Whitfield Cook, then handed over to crime novelist Raymond Chandler, who wanted to change many elements. Hitchcock resisted, then gave the final job of adding dialogue to Czenzi Ormonde, and an uncredited Ben Hecht. It's a good screenplay, but, as with many Hitchcock films, it's almost all surface. The depth in most Hitchcock films comes from the actors and their subtleties, not the written words. In this sense Hitchcock's reputation as the ultimate puppetmaster is well earned. Depth was the reason the film was made and actors hired, or else Hitchcock would likely have been satisfied with his storyboards published as early graphic novels.... I suspect that the reason that this film has been ignored, in favor of lesser Hitchcockian fare like Suspicion, To Catch A Thief, or The Man Who Knew Too Much, is because none of the stars in it were superstars. The above mentioned were all good solid works, but they lacked the depth this film does, on however a superficially `deep' level, in contrast to similar films coming out from Europe at the same time. But, it certainly is a very good film, by any measure, with some deeper subtexts than the script alone entails. If only Hitchcock had been more at home in probing deeper into motivations, and grounding some of his films in reality more, he could have moved past being a mere technical genius, and graced the realm of high art more often than he did, that realm where the European directors did not fear to tread, where high art and mass appeal were not seen as mutually opposing forces. Strangers On A Train is almost a definitive, or archetypal, Hitchcock film in that it has all his film canon's glories and flaws. It is not film noir, nor is it really a thriller, as commonly thought of. We know what is going on at all times, so the suspense is not a whodunit? but a willthevillainsucceed? And it is a darkly comic one at that. Humor is used to gloss over many failures in life, and this film proves that statement true. When you watch Strangers On A Train you will wince, chuckle, smile, shake your head, be frustrated and relaxed, and if that is not the sign of a work of art that does more right than wrong, there are always new Hollywood releases to watch and wince to. And that's a fact not to smile nor chuckle over.
Classic Hitchcock and classic suspense September 10, 2008
D. COLLIER (Brownwood, TX United States)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, starring Farley Granger, is a top-notch suspense thriller of the old school. The plot setup may seem formulaic, but this was made in a time when (for the most part) only the best formulas were used. A seemingly accidental meeting occurs on a train between a famous tennis champion and his deranged fan who happens to know a little too much about his personal life. During the course of their conversations murder comes up and soon blackmail and manipulation ensue. The plot builds with suspense at every possible twist and turn. The characters are intriguing and never dull. One of the things I like best about it (and like all of Hitchcock's greats) it warrants repeated viewings. You'll want to watch it more than once.
I would also recommend Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 little known film ROPE. It also stars Farley Granger in an almost opposite role as well as the great Jimmy Stewart.
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 DVDonsale.com | |
