Under Capricorn

Oddly aloof effect. Slow-moving and diffuse, and only really begins to become involving in the final half-hour, when it's (obviously) a bit too late.

pretty typical period melodrama other than the malicious maid who is less subtle but no less creepy than mrs danvers from rebecca

This lackluster entry in The Hitchcock Canon is only saved from complete mediocrity by a suspenseful third act.

no need to waste more time on this

Very, very melodramatic and filled with beautiful colors and stiff stagey acting.

Bergman is wonderful. Cotten is great, but is a bit miscast as a man who's masculine energy is supposed to have tempted Bergman into degradation. Nevertheless, it's really quite a compelling film with some remarkable similarities to "Rebecca" (Margaret Leighton is superb as a housekeeper who terrorizes Bergman out of love for Cotten), until the last act which throws way too many plot strands into the air and just can't catch them all again.

I enjoyed this immensely. The story, the almost (probably purposefully) TV drama-like visuals, the characters and the acting. Bergman is giving her best in portraying the frail dissatisfied woman in an internal turmoil, Wilding playing the nonchalant rich inquisitive intruder, and Joseph Cotten whom I loved since I saw The Magnificent Ambersons, where he plays a drastically different role - the benevolent self-controlled patriarch compared to the neurotic broken man with a dark past seen here.

Seriously crafted melodrama that never feels like a true Alfred Hitchcock movie. And the man himself said it was a Ingrid Bergman film, so that's what it is. Wasn't even a memorable one for Bergman. The alleged darker tones doesn't come alive and the characters are for the most part annoying and unlikable. There's still a finesse to Under Capricorn (1949) that I loked, so I won't claim I hated it. But for a Hitchcock, or even a Bergman picture, this was below par.

I've noticed a strong theme of love triangles in Hitchcock's films. I thought this was one of the more well written ones, but the reveal and actions taken after it didn't do much for me, primarily because I didn't find myself really caring about any of the characters. The pacing was also incredibly slow. The bright spot of this film was probably the performances of Michael Wilding (Charles Adare), Joseph Cotton (Sam Flusky), and Ingrid Bergman (Henrietta Flusky).

67.000

Hitchock continues his experimentations with intricately choreographed tracking shots and extremely long, unbroken takes, all of which is more interesting than the tepid screenplay. The acting is fine, especially from Bergman, but for whatever reason there seems to be a complete lack of dramatic tension between the characters. It all feels very flat.

couldn't warm up to this very unhitchcock film. it did have some moments and in all honesty it wasn't terrible. some of the matte paintings of the flusky mansion were comical, some others, or were they actual set shots, were beautifully filmed by jack cardiff. i suppose the film i kept thinking of was rebecca, unfortunately milly is no match for mrs. danvers. likewise while rebecca ushered in the 40's in a huge way....capricorn sends it out with a "why weepest thou"....

54.250

"This has many more plus points than critics at the time were willing to admit."