Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

The Worst Film Ever

Lack of good storyline.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

I do say this with a heavy heart, and I love Hitchcock and a vast majority of his films and consider him my all-time favourite director. He has directed many masterpieces among of which are the likes of Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window and Rebecca, and a handful of very good films. But that is not to say that he hasn't had any disappointments, I didn't care for Jamaica Inn, Under Capricorn, Topaz and The Paradine Case very much. Seeing Juno and the Paycock for the first time, as a Hitchcock completest and to see whether it was as bad as I'd heard, unfortunately this was another film of his I didn't care for. It is not quite as bad as I'd heard(it is certainly not bad enough for me to call it one of the worst films I've ever seen) but I do think the complaints are legitimate, though I can see why people will like it too. What was the best thing about it? For me, it was the acting, sure it was theatrical, but in a good way. Sara Allgood's performance is the best thing about Juno and the Paycock, commanding and formidable, and she is supported well by a wonderfully outlandish Sydney Morgan and a suitably gruff Edward Chapman. Barry Fitzgerald is great to see, and he's also very good. In my opinion though, Juno and the Paycock did have a lot of faults, putting that it's badly transferred aside. I was disappointed in Hitchcock's direction here, apparently he was an admirer of the source material(a stage play by Sean O'Casey) but that didn't come across. Instead it seemed as though he had no idea how to direct it, that he didn't genuinely have his heart in it and there is so little of his distinctive style if any at all that like Jamaica Inn and Under Capricorn it didn't feel like a Hitchcock film. It is a very scrappily made film, of Hitch's films Juno and the Paycock is the least accomplished visually that I've seen, the cinematography and editing lacks care and look as though they were done in a rush while the set(s) offer nothing interesting. The music comes across as shrill and obtrusive, while there is far too much talk in the dialogue to the extent that the drama is brought to a screeching halt at times and not enough of the rich characterisations of the source material and the blend of wit and tragedy is nowhere near sharp, powerful or moving enough. The story may be faithful to the play but is bogged down by turgid pacing(the hour-and-a-half duration seems twice as long here, I have nothing against slow-paced films, some of my all-time favourites are so, but not in a long time have I been this bored stiff from a film), scenes that go on for too long and go at a snail's pace and very stagy and somewhat calcified drama/action that what made the play so good is lost in translation. To conclude, very disappointing even for an early effort, especially when such a great director was involved. 4/10 Bethany Cox

This is a film that is poorly edited, directed and captured on camera from shot to shot. However it is early in Hitchcock's career as it is also a film that plays out more like a play and/or sitcom then an actual film. The acting is okay, but what I do like about it is the fact that it has some very interesting concepts to think about. This film definitely has a lot of food for thought. Furthermore I also like the fact that this film is completely different than anything Hitchcock would go on later to do as far as story and style wise in his films. I always respect the fact when a director can do something a little different or completely different then the style and (in David Lynch's case) story that they are known for. Early in Kubrick's career, Kubrick did some different styles than his usual signature stuff, and Hitchcock did something completely different than his norm with this film here. Kudos for the effort. Most great directors usually have a few that are different than their norm, and that's a good thing because to be the best one needs to go through trial and error at times. Decent film here though, worth a look for the different style.

A poor Irish family is notified they will be inheriting a small fortune, but things don't go according to plan. This classic stage play, by Sean O'Casey, makes a weak motion picture. Despite being directed by Alfred Hitchcock, little is done to make it interesting as a film. And, unfortunately, nothing helps you understand context. In fact, the introductory political speech and shooting of Barry Fitzgerald makes it even more confusing; a narrative explaining setting and situation would have been better. The introduction of the family characters falter, also. Central is Sara Allgood (as Juno Boyle). Her unemployed, and hopelessly in debt, husband is Edward Chapman (as Jack). Their children, one-armed John Laurie (as Johnny) and pregnant Kathleen O'Regan (as Mary), are left holding the dramatic potential.*** Juno and the Paycock (6/29/30) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Sara Allgood, Edward Chapman, Kathleen O'Regan, John Laurie

While competently directed, the movie is too obviously a photographed stage play (thought Hitchcock tried to open it up). It's nothing like his usual type of film, either; the one bit of suspense as a twist is obvious from the beginning (the actor overacts too obviously). Other plot twists are obvious quite early.Still, it has its moments. There's some nice comedy and characterization. If you're a Hitchcock completist, it's worth looking at to see how he handles a type of material he didn't seem attuned with. If not, you may find uninteresting.(Not a criticism of the film, but the Irish accents can make it hard to make out some of the dialog.)