at Internet Archive
30 out of 32 people found the following review useful: An lesser-known and underrated Hitchcock masterpiece!, 6 May 1999 Author: George-n-Kansas from Topeka, KS
It's a real shame (and also rather difficult to believe) that this film is so little-known and difficult to view. Even though it was directed by the famous Alfred Hitchcock (in my opinion, the most brilliant film director who ever lived), it has too often been dismissed as one of his "lesser works." To each his own, I suppose, but _Under Capricorn_ boasts some of the most beautiful photography and eloquent, literate dialogue to be found in any Hitchcock film. Although the plot and structure of the film are familiar (the quintessential love triangle, ala _Wuthering Heights_), Hitchcock's treatment raises it above the ordinary. The costumes and sets are actually quite lavish, and pay particular attention to the unique musical score! Hitchcock's experiments with the "ten-minute take" (with which he experimented in his previous film, _Rope_) also add to the film's interest. The film is not, of course, an artistic triumph for Hitchcock alone. Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotten (to name only two) are stars of the caliber that one just doesn't see anymore, and they give worthy performances. Casting Ingrid Bergman as an Irish noblewoman is, of course, rather bizarre casting against type, but this great actress makes it work. Joseph Cotten possesses the rougher qualities that his part demands, but his performance also elicits sympathy from the viewer (such as the scene where he is going to present his wife with a collar of rubies but then decides to hide his gift when she and Charles Adair comment that it wouldn't go with her gown). The other actors, mostly little-known to American audiences, fill their roles well more than adequately and the very fact that they are unfamiliar makes them easier for the viewer to see as the characters they play rather than as "stars." All in all, _Under Capricorn_ is an underrated masterpiece that is surely one of the best "costume" pictures of the 1940s. It is not for anyone seeking vicarious thrills or shocks, but for discriminating viewers who demand a coherent storyline, color photography that is aesthetically pleasing, literate dialogue and interesting casting, _Under Capricorn_ will fill the bill. I recommend it enthusiastically!
20 out of 27 people found the following review useful: Hitchcocks Greatest?, 8 September 2000 Author: desol-2 from London, England
Under Capricorn, is along with Notorious, I Confess and Rear Window Hitchcocks greatest film. Under Capricorn has been greatly under appreciated mainly because it was a commercial failure and because Hitchcock talked the movie down saying that he only made it for Ingrid Bergman. The truth is that he had been working on getting it made for years, would he really put his production company under pressure on it's second project with a $2.5 million budget if he didn't care for it. Maybe part of its mixed reputation is because it's not a thriller, being a character driven movie, at just under two hours long its not you're typical Hitchcock movie. But the story is revealed in a wonderful way, with such a great romantic feeling that I'm amazed that it's not more highly thought off by the general public. If there ever was a more beautifully film movie I've never seen it. Ingrid Bergman is as she always is, brilliant; her 10-minuet scene in which she tells wilding the whole story of what happened is pure magic. Another great moment is when Bergman has locked herself in her room and wilding comes through her window. Joseph Cotton is also on top form. Really all that I've got left to say is if you haven't yet seen this film and you get the chance to don't waste that chance. I wish it would come out on DVD or video I've nearly worn my copy out.
12 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Underrated and beautifully photographed, 17 March 2005 Author: greazyfingers from United States
While certainly uncharacteristic of Hitchcock's American films this film still has the Master's unmistakable imprint. Joseph Cotton is excellent in his role as a common man who resents the upper class of which he can never be a part. The rest of the actors do a fine job including Ingrid Bergman's turn as Cotton's drunk half mad wife. Perhaps the best and most interesting aspect of the film is the gorgeous Technicolor cinematography by Jack Cardiff. Cardiff who is probably best known for his work with Powell and Pressburger does a great job bringing the rich color of this period piece to the screen. The camera work is also characteristically Hitchcock with many long traveling shots with wonderfully complex compositions. The pace is slow and lacking suspense, but the characters and the situations are interesting and make the film work despite the pacing problems. Certainly not one of Hitchcock's strongest films, but definitely worth watching.
14 out of 17 people found the following review useful: An Odd Misfire From A Great Director, 13 October 2004 Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio
With a great director, a good cast, and a relatively interesting premise, it's surprising that this doesn't work better than it does. The Australian setting has potential, as does Joseph Cotten's character and the tangle of relationships in his household. But, despite some good scenes, it never really comes together, and even when things start to happen, it never feels as if it has hit its stride.There's little fault to be found with the settings, which are convincing enough. Some of the characters never really come to life, but there is still an interesting mix of them. The pace is one area that definitely could have been improved, and the pre-occupation with the long takes certainly doesn't help at all. The technique worked very well in Hitchcock's "Rope", because it meshed with the setting and the subject matter. It doesn't fit so well here in "Under Capricorn", and it often dilutes the suspense rather than increasing it.By no means is it a total clinker - the story does have some interesting parts, and with a different approach it could have been suspenseful, even memorable. Hitchcock's technical skill is still present in many respects, and even Hitchcock's lesser achievements are still worth seeing.The movie's overly-polished feel is consistent with the approach that was chosen. It's at least one case where the more familiar, less affected Hitchcock style would have resulted in a much better film.
10 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Underrated, 16 September 2002 Author: pgs-1 from DK
UNDER CAPRICORN has always been dismissed, as Hitchcocks failure nr.1. Its not true (none of his film was failures) Hitchcock made a lot of masterpieces, therefore even a good film by him, would be dismissed. UC is a very strange Hitchcock film, but beautiful and interesting. Ingrid Bergman, who was briliant in NOTORIOUS and SPELLBOUND is not good in the leading role (she was said to be unconfortable under the shooting). Cotten is best, a very underrated actor. Its not one of Hitch masterpieces, but less can do it. 7/10
7 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Under Capricorn, 12 September 2007 Author: I_John_Barrymore_I from United Kingdom
This is one of Hitchcock's very best films.1831: Irishman Charles Adare arrives in Australia to make his fortune, and soon hooks up with Sam Flusky, a wealthy landowner with a shady past and a business proposition. Ignoring the orders of his cousin, a local Governor, Charles continues to associate with Flusky and his alcoholic wife Henrietta, who was a friend of Charles' sister many years ago back in Ireland.The long takes the film is composed of are often masterful. Whereas his previous film Rope felt like a gimmicky experiment (albeit a successful one), here the technique is perfected, and actually serves a purpose. It widens the scope to allow the actors room to deliver fine performances, and to exploit the lavish sets. It also serves to narrow the scope, either to focus attention or withhold crucial information until the last moment (it's especially effective at these two). This focusing/concealing also adds to the sense of Bergman's isolation and entrapment in her environment, and allows for some of the film's best shots.I'm not a fan of Jack Cardiff, but his colour cinematography is considerably less jarring here than in his Powell-Pressburger outings, and although it does take a while to adjust the eyes, it's perfectly suited to the mood and setting.Ingrid Bergman delivers what I consider to be her best performance. Henrietta is frail and very vulnerable - a pathetic creature. Yet the strength and dignity that she once possessed is glimpsed at the outset, and gradually comes to the fore without ever completely displacing that vulnerability.Joseph Cotten likewise does an excellent job. His crippling inferiority complex dictates everything he does, and it's where the film gleans much of its drama. In his own way he's equally as pathetic as Henrietta; trapped in a different kind of mental prison. Sometimes he's unaware of his cruelty, believing himself to be doing the right thing; at others it's as if he can't help himself. He's a man who constantly tries to do good things, yet at every turn he's thwarted either by his own secret past, or his fear of that past. For a man so ostensibly powerful he's easy to knock down, and his reaction to these setbacks just reinforces his own negative perception of himself. This conflict is written on his every gesture and expression.Michael Wilding's performance as Charles is less technically brilliant, but as the carefree, opportunistic cad who sees in Henrietta the chance to do an act of great kindness he's wonderful. There is great humanity in all three leads, but it's most overt and infectious in Wilding.
6 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Watch it and try not to compare..., 15 July 2006 Author: indrasnet from Here and Now
If your approach to reviewing this movie is to compare it with Hitchcock's usual style, Under Capricorn will surely not compare. If, however, you can suspend your expectations and view it with an open eye and mind, you might see that, in its own right, it is an excellent film of the type I refer to as the "Victorian soap opera." Being an aficionado of this "genre", perhaps I'm biased; but I enjoyed immensely the leisurely pace, extended dialog (which unlike other reviewers, I found to be intelligent, graceful, and poetic). I found it to be gently suspenseful, never really being sure who would get the girl in the end, or even who might survive to the end.Joseph Cotton was appealing, even though his character throughout much of the movie seemed to be villainous, and his reasons for being that way were quite apparent by the end of the film. My suspension of disbelief centered around Bergman's casting as an Irish aristocrat: once in awhile she managed to say a word that had an Irish flavor, but mostly she just sounded Swedish. However, that did not detract at all from her usual thoughtful performance. Michael Wilding irritated me a little with his foppish ways, yet even he managed to come off as a human being with faults and virtues...just like the rest of us. Leighton was superb and she, like Cotton, seemed to be a treacherous yet sympathetic character. I think it was the portrayals of complicated people with no one being painted as totally good or bad, the nuanced characterizations that I found so artistic yet real.If you approach this movie without preconceptions, you might be drawn into it and appreciate Hitchcock's genius in an entirely different way.
6 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Hitchcocks caution backfired during shooting., 15 July 2003 Author: eva25at from Vienna, Austria
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
(Possible spoilers)UNDER CAPRICORN was of course not produced by Selznick, as I wrote in my first comment, but by Hitchcock himself. I was led to this error by the fact that Margaret Leighton and Joseph Cotten in those costumes and on those sets reminded me so much of GONE WITH THE WIND and DUEL IN THE SON.It is certainly watchable. There is no such a thing as an "unwatchable" Hitckcock film. The cinematography (by Jack Cardiff, who also made BLACK NARCISSUS and THE RED SHOES) Is superlative and Ingrid Bergman's performance is moving, especially in the scene where she pulls herself together and makes an attempt to run the household. The kitchen-maids, used to Leightons strict rule disobey, and Bergman realizes that she has no authority in her own house. Leighton strides in Bergman's bedroom and systematically exposes her and her bottles in front of her guests. But this is probably the only good scene in the entire film. The fact that Hitchcock produced it himself explains much of the film's shortcomings: He tried to play it safe, because his own money was at stake. UNDER CAPRICORN must have looked terrific on paper, but his caution during shooting robbed the story of everything that must have attracted him in the first place: Fact is that he failed with one of the most promising subjects: mesalliance. A society lady marries her stable-boy, suffers under the loss of her social position and drowns her sorrows in the bottle. An interesting premise, but Hitchcock fails completely to elucidate their complex relationship. Hasn't Cotten every reason to be depressed since his wife considers him so obviously as her punishment? And what would have happened after his years of (not entirely selfless) self-sacrifice, if Bergman had refused to meet her part of the deal? Hitchcock gives no answers, and his gingerly approach paralyses the film to such a degree that the most interesting scenes are not even shown: Bergman and Cotten were to grown up to play teenagers, and Hitchock was unwilling to curtail their precious screen-presence for a flashback with younger actors. They simply tell their story to the patiently listening Michael Wilding, and instead of psychology he resorts to a gunshot to bring the film to a conclusion. That's it, plotwise.UNDER CAPRICORN could have had the drama of WUTHERING HEIGHTS or the humor of THE PRINCESS AND THE SWINEHERD. Hitchcock keeps the film from gliding into parody, but his direction seems heavy-handed and maladroit. The film lacks dynamism. Other stars in Hitchcock films, like James Stewart, or Anthony Perkins were not exactly hyperactive, either, but he explored the dark obsessions beneath their apparent phlegm. Here, her misses every opportunity. With Bergman and Cotten he had top actors - and then he was afraid to rely on their talent and pushed them around like pawns instead. The film may look like a masterpiece when compared with all those "Hitchcockian" thrillers made by the master's clones. But the director of VERTIGO & co deserves to be measured by the high standard he set with his best films. And in this context, UNDER CAPRICORN is not worth more than a 6/10.
16 out of 28 people found the following review useful: Hitchcock's least interesting film. Not surprising that it was a massive flop., 12 September 2004 Author: Jonathon Dabell (barnaby.rudge@hotmail.co.uk) from Wakefield, England
Transatlantic Pictures (Hitchcock's own production company) must've rubbed their hands with glee when they decided to co-produce this film with Warner Bros. For not only did they have the world's leading female actress (Ingrid Bergman) in their film, they also had gifted stars Joseph Cotten, Michael Wilding and Margaret Leighton lending support, and naturally the great Alfred Hitchcock at the helm. If ever a film was sure to be a critical and commercial hit, Under Capricorn was it. Such a shame, then, that Under Capricorn emerged as the worst film of Hitchcock's career. The critics roasted it, the public ignored it, and Transatlantic Pictures went bust.Irish aristocratic lady Henrietta (Bergman) elopes to Australia with her cruel lover Sam Flusky (Cotten). She gradually develops the illness dipsomania, what with her lover controlling her every move with over-bearing authority and their maid Milly (Leighton) plying her with drink. A childhood friend of Henrietta's, Charles Adare (Wilding) turns up and, realising pretty quickly that all is not well, tries to help her regain a sense of stability.The film is a laughably overwrought costume melodrama, totally ill-suited to Hitchcock's playful, suspenseful directing style. A year previously, the director had made the thriller Rope, using experimental ten minute takes, and in this film he still seems to be in the habit of allowing scenes to go on and on (maybe not ten minutes, but some bits last for six or seven minutes without a single cut). Frequently, the film feels tediously unspooled as a result. The actors seem to over-act much of the time, but it's hard to see how they could've avoided this as much of the screenplay requires them to handle some horribly overripe dialogue and reactions. Under Capricorn is undoubtedly the least interesting film that Hitchcock ever made. Those who try to persuade us that it is a misunderstood masterpiece are, I'm sorry to report, well and truly kidding themselves.
10 out of 17 people found the following review useful: To be proper.. a bit of a let down, I'd say., 27 March 2004 Author: ShrinkSteve from Hurricane, WV
As a lover of Hitchcock I couldn't take 2 viewings of this one. The story has potential but the characters are horribly developed. The acting is fine, since the cast was superb. However, I wouldn't have wanted to be an actor in this one. Without spoiling, there is just too much anger without explanation. Too many characters lack character. The utter blindness of the leads to the glaring and painful flaws in the antagonists is almost comical. Finally, the sudden restoration of everyone's honesty and peace in the last scene is intolerable. A story is believable if the characters act like real humans would act. This film is an attempt to fool the viewer into thinking that a leopard can change it's spots in the blink of an eye! It is interesting to note that, even in a melodramatic story driven piece, Hitch still found a place for the falsely accused in the plot. Hitchcock was great, there will never be an equal, but, even he made a dud.. makes me feel better about myself!
Add another review
