Sorry, this movie sucks

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I'm crazy about Alida Valli. I'd seen every film she's ever done except "The Paradine Case" until today that is. Today I met Mrs Paradine for the first time. Strangely enough it doesn't feel like Hitchcock it feels more like Carol Reed the director who gave her a major International hit with "The Third Man" a couple of years later. I fell in love with Alida Valli in the 1954 Luchino Visconti's tragic romantic epic "Senso". Now having seen "The Paradine Case" I see a glimpse of the woman in "Senso" where her actions, are also atrocious but govern by love. A love who will only lead to tragedy. Visconti showed us an Alida Valli that other than a great beauty was also a great actress. Hitchcock introduced her as VALLI in this film, a gimmick with very short legs. Here she plays the widow of a blind man that "allegedly" she killed. The casting of Gregory Peck is a major problem, maybe not for the box office in 1947, but it certainly detrimental to the suspension of disbelief, so needed in a thriller. Charles Laughton is superb in his few, short scenes. I wonder if Hitchcock himself was the inspiration for his role. A judge, a lascivious man with an roving eye for young pretty women. Ethel Barrymore plays his wife, to absolute perfection. Then, Louis Jourdan, beautiful of course, Charles Coburn, Ann Todd but, it is Alida Valli who gives this film that extra something. Considered a "minor" Hitchcock by most but not by me. 9/10

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.

As much as I have always admired Hitchcock's work, I just couldn't bare the monotony and flatness that surround The Paradine Case. Unfortunately, this film is probably one of the most boring and least interesting of all of the great director's works. The storyline is very slow and simple, and there aren't any spectacular suspenseful moments that he accustomed us to so frequently. Sadly, in times of so many fast-paced and impressive courtroom thrillers and dramas (i.e. Witness for the Prosecution, Anatomy of a Murder, Judgment at Nuremberg) this movie really deserved the bad reputation that it gained in the first few years after its original release.If it weren't for the well-known director and notable movie stars, the movie would probably end up as some long-forgotten B-grade flick that no one would really want to watch.It's a story of forbidden romance, which began between a woman, accused of killing her blind husband, and her prominent defender. This chief motive intertwines with all the events that occur inside the courtroom.The movie started a mindset connected with the notions of feminism. It presents how a woman is able to wrap a man around her finger and make him do everything that she says. She is the strong figure that gives orders, and manipulates all those men, who fall in love with her at first sight.Still, I must say that there are some positive aspects that may be taken from the movie. Definitely, the viewer is able to admire the very decent scenery, set, and costumes shown in the picture.The movie presents a fine insight into the London middle class life. It also depicts, in an inquisitive manner, how the English court operated on a daily basis in those times, and proved once again that all the proceedings, consisting of various twists and revelations, might be thrilling, and can sometimes end up in a very surprising fashion. The acting is on a very high level. Gregory Peck is great as the barrister Anthony Keane, who falls blindly in love with a woman he is supposed to defend with cold blood and full consciousness of the mind, not through heart and emotions. Charles Laughton gives a convincing performance, as the strict, rigorous, emphatic and ironic judge. He is in total contradiction with Peck's character, one might notice. Alida Valli is mesmerizing As Lady Paradine, with all her grace and beauty, which makes it easy to see why every man lusts her and falls under her spell. Ann Todd as the brave and lovable Gay Keane, a wife, who even under the difficult circumstances doesn't give up and lets go of the jealousy.All in all, The Paradine Case looks more like a soap opera designed for TV, not a substantial film directed by one of the greatest director's in history. However, as you watch it, don't concentrate too much on the story, and simply enjoy the precise and entertaining courtroom scenes and the pleasurable subtleness of London's atmosphere.

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.