User reviews

The rumors surrounding Marnie - the last in an amazing run of truly great Hitchcock movies that lasted from 1950-1964 - are plentiful. All of them consist of director Alfred Hitchcock's growing obsession for Tippi Hedrin (who starred in The Birds one year earlier). By the end of the movie, Hitchcock would not talk to Hedrin or even refer to her by name (this following a supposed failed pass at Hedrin), and his friends say Marnie was the last movie Hitchcock truly cared about.

Regardless of the rumors, Marnie was a box-office failure and went unnoticed until recently when DVD brought back Hitchcock's unremarkable films, along with his classics. And behold, from the ashes ariseth... Marnie.

Starring Hedrin as Marnie and Sean Connery as the man who falls in love with her, this movie tells of a compulsive thief and pathalogical liar who is caught by Connery and blackmailed into marrying him. Connery finds that Hedrin has incredible fears of red and thunderstorms, refuses to let men touch her and has disturbing dreams brought on by knocks at her door. Connery must play the dual role of keeping Marnie away from the police while trying to find out why she does what she does.

This is indeed an excellent Hitchcock film. He reminds the audience that he did start out directing silent movies, and uses this silence very well in the robbery/cleaning lady scene. The moments leading up to Marnie's revealing flashback are incredible, and the movie reeks of typical Hitchcock: slow, methodic pacing to a brilliant and stunning climax.

Marnie is not a patented "Hitchcock classic": The fades-to-red have not aged well (if they ever did look good), the horse-riding scenes just don't work, and the backgrounds are obviously fake (although it has been speculated that Hitchcock did this on purpose -- whatever the case he later regretted it). But the basic premise, the acting, the directing are all top notch and have turned Marnie into another of the "Underrated Hitchcock"s.

8/10

Marnie is not perfect, the horse riding scenes are artificially edited and some of the sets seemed somewhat plastic-theatre-backdrop standard. However, while Marnie is not one of Hitchcock's very finest films, it is one of his most underrated. And I don't think it is close to his worst, his weakest overall for me is Jamaica Inn and Topaz the worst of his late-period films. Hitchcock directs splendidly with a lot of memorable touches in the final thirty minutes that are his style all over, while the photography is suave, atmospheric and above all striking. Bernard Hermann's score, while not quite as good as his ones for Vertigo and Psycho, fits perfectly and has a very haunting edge. The dialogue has wit and intensity, which makes the many talky scenes in Marnie interesting. The story is slow in pace but didn't bore me, here there are themes that are not easy to talk about that are explored compellingly and tastefully. The final thirty minutes is edge-of-your-seat stuff, to me the best final act of any Hitchcock film pro-Psycho. The characters are not easy to engage with and very complex, especially Hedren's, but all the actors give their all to making them interesting to the viewer. Grace Kelly may be more people's idea of icy aloofness needed for the woman who steals to forget, but Tippi Hedren particularly in the final act does a very good job(though I preferred her in The Birds). Sean Connery has a very atypical role, his character is somewhat boorish and calculating but he brings those qualities across as well as his trademark suavity and charm. Diane Baker is terrific, and Louise Latham is genuinely frightening as the mother figure. Bruce Dern and Martin Gabel don't have as much to do, but they are good too. To conclude, a fascinating film. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Add me to the group of viewers who like this film. Yes, it is long and heavy on dialog, but visually stunning, and Bernard Herrmann's music is rich and vibrant. The best score he has ever composed.

For me, I have favorite scenes in the movie, for example the opening shot of a woman carrying a yellow purse. From there we go to her hotel room and watch as she transforms herself into another person. Old clothes get discarded in a train locker and the key gently kicked down a grate. All of this is done with no words, but wonderful camera angles, and accompanied by a great musical score.

The office scene where Marnie waits in the women's room before robbing the safe. You only hear the voices of her co-workers saying good night for the weekend. Again, this entire scene is done visually, only this time with a split screen showing Marnie and the cleaning lady simultaneously, as if we are watching a play. Only when the shoe falls from her coat pocket do we know that the cleaning woman is hard of hearing and the scene is now concluded.

There are several vignettes such as these that make the movie interesting. Yes, the riding scenes are fake looking, and I think it was just a case where Alfred just didn't quite keep up with technology. But when you think of Marnie, this is the last, true Alfred Hitchcock movie we will ever see. From then on, we never again see a grand production with high production values as we have here.

Yes it has flaws, and the acting may not be up to par at times, but there are worthwhile aspects that make this movie a classic in the Hitchcock canon.

This is not the stuff that director Hitchcock is usually attracted to. Hitchcock was scared of jails. In this film, the lead female character prefers to be bridled by marriage rather than jail. It is an intriguing choice for a character who had earlier stated to her husband "You don't love me. I am something you have caught. Some kind of wild animal you have trapped." Aware of this, the young lady who has so far fooled a lot of rich men and escaped the law, prefers marriage to jail. She is smart, a woman who embezzles her employers to buy rich gifts for her mother, aware of modesty in dress (keeps pulling her skirt over her knees) and a convincing liar. Like "Notorious," the marriage is one of convenience, or so it appears—the end of the film is open-ended.

For those who are not aware of it, Hitchcock fired the initial scriptwriter (a male), who honestly felt the rape of the wife by the husband was out character with male lead played by Sean Connery. The replaced scriptwriter (a lady) wrote the sequence which was used, in a suggestive way rather than a graphic way. Hitchcock loved to slip in sex even if it was out of character. Lesbianism is suggested by the husband's sister-in-law's remark "What a dish!" a remark one would associate from the opposite sex. (Hitchcock similarly played with homosexuality in "Rope"). A critical scene that could be mistaken for child molestation was probably an innocent gesture mistaken by the mother.

Hitchcock usually was attentive to visuals and sound. This is an unusual film where the director swings from one extreme of high sophistication to absolute stupidity. The opening shots of the woman walking away with the yellow handbag are stunning. The silent "cleaning" of the office safe, while a deaf woman cleans the office is simply outstanding. Yet the crass painting of a dock near Marnie's mother's house would make a school kid laugh out loud. Why would a woman who is scared of red wear red lipstick or not react when her husband's sister-in-law wears red at a party? Similarly, the shot of Marnie's hand not being able to pick up the money in the safe is an unconvincing shot, if ever there was one.

The film can be appreciated and be equally dismissed. The acting by all the main characters was good but Louise Latham performance (and make up!) needs to be singled out for praise. Kubrick seems to have copied Hitchcock's Marie's voice differentiation in the young child's voice in "The Shining." I am not surprised if people swing from liking the film to dismissing it and back again. It has great elements and bad elements as well—yet the bottom line is, it entertains!

Marnie operates as a confidence trickster, taking her cash from her employers, and changing her identity along the way, she's spotted one day by a wealthy businessman named Mark, who tries to help her see the error of her ways.

This seems to be one of the more underrated Hitchcock movies, it doesn't seem to be as worshipped as the likes of Vertigo and The Birds, but I think it deserves more acclaim. Hitchcock definitely pushed the boundaries with Marnie, in many ways it was ahead of its time, tackling subjects that are this time weren't often talked about.

What's so interesting about this film, is learning what makes Marnie tick, the history with her mum, and her terror of blood, you have to wait to learn everything, but its worth the wait.

The filming and camera work are terrific, so many scenes are memorable, that moment where Marnie is raiding the safe, with the cleaner at work the other side of the door, that was great, that moment where Mark leans over her on the ship, that was also a great piece of filming.

Two incredible performances, Tippi Hedren is perfect as Marnie, she's conniving, smart, broken, but glamorous and determined. Connery is the perfect counter balance, he's tough, forthright, confident and fiendishly handsome, the pair combine incredibly well.

It deserves more acclaim.

9/10.

To find out that Bernardo Bertolucci, the director of Last Tango In Paris, loves Marnie makes a lot of sense, to me anyway. If you think about it, Last Tango In Paris could have been a Hitchcock movie. An American in Paris meets a young girl, they have sex without knowing anything about each other and ends up in murder. Marnie is truly perverse and Sean Connery's obsession for Tippi Hedren is infinitely more perverse than whatever poor Tippi Hedren suffers from. He is turned on by her rejection. The kiss during the gelid honeymoon stays inches away from necrophilia. right?. The script is just delicious. Sean Connery goes for the troublesome center of his character, yes he does, whether consciously or unconsciously. Tippi Hedren is terrific here and with all the things we know now about the making of the movie her performance has acquired some extra something. Diane Baker as the scorned sister in law is a delight. So here we are, talking about a movie made 53 years ago. Time does extraordinary things.

Far and away my favourite Hitch and in my top five movies of all time (yes, I'm very biased but there you go), "Marnie" stands out as one of the most deliciously bitter, malevolent and sardonic "romance" stories ever made, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that it is either sworn by or passionately hated by general public. It is, however, no less influential than any of the acclaimed and widely loved films that Hitch made previously. Even the staunchest of Hitchcock's fans seem to be bitterly divided over this one though, some among them simply not being able to forgive him for being so direct and blatant in choice and treatment of his subject matter (let alone technical inadequacies) - and for delivering a slow, sombre, pain ridden and malignant psychosexual drama, whereas others, myself included, revel in those very aspects of the film. Hedren and Connery's singular coupling on screen and their performances have also been subject to much heated debate - in my opinion they're both excellent, in that they very successfully portray genuinely unlovable characters and play off one another almost instinctively and to great effect, helped by a phenomenally sarcastic dialogue and more than memorable quips ("The idea was to kill myself, not to feed the damned fish", as well as the entire "You Freud, me Jane" sequence). Delightful.

Hedren is adequately surly, bitter, spiteful, troubled and fragile all at the same time, her average acting talents and icy beauty working for the film rather than against it, whereas Connery is nothing short of a perverse yet suave male filthy pig dying to get in between her treasured legs and "take legal possession" for precisely those reasons. Unsurprisingly, the chapter in acclaimed Truffaut's book of interviews with Hitch that belongs to "Marnie" is subtitled "Un Amour Fetishiste" - read it. It's interesting that Hitchcock had troubles with his leading ladies in some of his best films - his disdain of Kim Novak and endless arguments he had with her on set are all well documented, in addition to his falling out with Hedren halfway through "Marnie". Both films are laced with moments of electrifying energy maybe just for that reason, and both women look spectacular on screen. In any case, it's perfect casting for both leads in this one, in addition to a brilliant support led by Latham and Baker, not to mention Herrmann's emotional score, which so assuredly bounces between hysterical, pleading, lustful, torturous, and tragic - and back again.

Aside from directorial touches of genius (who doesn't get goosebumps when Marnie first reveals her face after washing out the hair dye) - there are undoubtedly many, many flaws and technically weak places in the film - the zooming in and out on the money in the Rutland safe is a particular standout in that respect, totally over the top and downright silly. Obviously painted backdrops and horseriding sequences have all been slagged off to death as well (altough surprisingly these don't seem to bother people that much when systematically applied in "The Birds"), but they are more than compensated for by the greyish, autumnal and trance-like feel of the film, and are very likely deliberately calculated in to greatly enhance the overall atmosphere. Hitch doesn't even try to win the viewer's affection by injecting a bit of his trademark humour in this doleful story and rightly so - it would have suffered immeasurably and would have been totally out of place. For this is a serious film about both female and male emotional and sexual hang ups (Hedren: "I'm sick?? Well take a look at yourself, old dear!!...you've got a pathological fix on a woman who's not only an admitted criminal but who screams if you come near her!!" - Connery: "Well I never said I was perfect") - "un grand film malade", as Truffaut affectionately put it - therefore no humour, apart from the bitterest variety, no happy ending, no sympathetic characters we can identify with, nothing. But the manner in which the film ends - the car departing, exiting from screen where previously we saw no street, road or way out - gives a flicker of hope that Marnie will eventually, with or without Mark, be able to find her peace. You can either love or despise the symbolism - it's entirely left to you.

In many ways it is a cheesy film, well executed by a master director who knew what he was doing.

First, the idea that Marnie can successfully disguise herself by changing her hair color is akin to believing that King Lear effectuated a good disguise by rubbing dirt on his face.

Second , casting Sean Connery ( a truly amazing looking leading man, no complaints here) as a patrician Philadelphian is hilarious. Even Alan Napier, who is a lot more believable as a Main Line scion is stretching things. Philadelphians of that class look patrician but have very flat, nasal voices, not the distinguished British accent which Napier brings to his role. Maybe Hitchcock should have asked Grace Kelly what she sounded like before she eradicated her Philadelphia accent. (Louise Latham also sounds implausible as a Baltimoran. Their accents are even more nasal than Philadelphians' accents).

Third, the rear screen projection which is acceptable in the 30's and 40's is too passe in a 60's film, as is the painted backdrop of the Port of Baltimore at the end of Mrs. Edgar's street. By this time, Hitchcock could have done some location filming, or had his production designer and a second unit director film these brief scenes to edit into his movie.

Fourth, the plot requires the suspension of disbelief to swallow. Both Connery and Hedren are so psychologically mixed up as to be dysfunctional, who would want either one of them, no matter how good looking? As for Hedren's performance, I see her as a heavy handed actress , who at times is too hammy, and at other times too plodding. I rarely think of her as giving a delicately wrought performance.

Somehow Hitchcock is so masterful at his art, that he manages to turn out an entertaining movie in spite of all of these and more problems.

"Marnie" is one of the least essential-to-watch Hitchcock films: he plays one ingenious trick on the audience (the robbery and the cleaning lady), but apart from that one sequence, there are hardly any memorable set-pieces or flourishes (the screen going red a few times does not count). Like "Suddenly, Last Summer", the entire film hinges on what-happened-that-fateful-day. But unlike SLS, where the ultimate revelation is genuinely shocking, the ending of "Marnie" leaves us with an "is that all?" feeling. Very good performances by both Tippi Hedren and Sean Connery, full-blown score by Berrnard Hermann. **1/2 out of 4.

When Marnie was first released it was (quite unfairly) dismissed by critics. It has since been come to be known as one of Hitchcock's great films though. Tippi Hedren stars as Marnie. She is a liar and a thief. She has stolen large amounts of money from her employers on various occasions. Things start to change as she begins to work for the dashing Mark Rutland though. He becomes romantically interested in her but not wanting to get close to anybody she decides to steal the money and escape as quickly as she can. However, Mark catches her red handed and he gives her the choice of marrying him or being held accountable for her crimes. She chooses to marry him but he comes to find out that she can't stand to be touched by any man. He realizes that she has a deep seated problem from her past and that he must now help her to confront this. Marnie is a wonderful film and it is very underrated. A lot of people have watched it and it has gone over their heads therefore leading to the underrated status. It is much the same with Tippi Hedren's performance. Even though it is brilliant alot of people cannot see how wonderful it really is. Sean Connery is also very good.

It is really too bad that some people can't see Marnie for the masterpiece that it is. It's really quite pointless to call Marnie a "flawed" film as well. If Marnie is truly watched intelligently you will see that this is not the case. Marnie deserves far more credit than it gets. If you watch it I hope that you enjoy it as much as I have.

5 stars / 5 stars

Marnie is a misunderstood masterpiece from the Hitchcock. Often cited as an example of a messy, flawed genius - it can be off putting to some since its quite talky. However stick with it and you will be intrigued and itching to discover all about Marnie (contrary to what most say, played with understated brilliance from Tippi Hedren).

The direction and cinematography is exceptional with Hitchcock and his usual crew i.e. Rob Burks etc on form. The atmosphere generated (apart from being 'Hitchcocky') is unique, dark, gloomy and at times akin to a horror film, yet it is utterly appealing and compelling. Theres an almost creepy, artificial humanless feel to proceedings as a result of the direction and how the actors have been directed to act as is briefly highlighted by a Hitchcock scholar in the documentary on the disk. Hitchcock knows the art of cinema, no flashy fast cuts or fast moving camera's as we see nowadays, but measured, inspired direction laced with flourishes of creative genius (thats Hithcock for you). Atmosphere, emotion is built up like poetry. Witness for example some moments of genius such as the final revelation, in what is one of Hitchcocks most underrated, powerful and shocking pieces of direction; the riding sequence which culminates in Marnies fantastic yet disturbing line of dialogue, " there there....", and also sinister momnets such as when Marnies mother wakes here from her nightmare- her voice disturbingly artificial in its lack of emotion and empathy for a clearly distraught Marnie.

Speaking of the mother, Louise Latham -the actress behind the role effortlessly steals the show from an already superb Hedren and Connery. Latham eleicits an absolutely breathtaking performance. Her character is frighteningly creepy, tragic, powerful and marvellously played to keep up the suspense and intrigue. You don't know what to make of the character except of the fact she knows or has played a part in Marnies psychological condition. In fact I would go as far as to say it is one of the greatest performances in a Hitchcock picture - an example of genius casting. Similarly her character is arguably the greatest 'mother' character in any Hitchcock film beating Pyscho and Notorious' madame Sebastion.

Marnie is a truly great picture and definetly Hitchcocks last great although Frenzy is a nice enough distraction. Not as good as Vertigo or Rear Window but certainly up there in the higher echelons of Hitchcocks work.

9/10

The charge of misogyny is too often thrown in Hitchcock's direction - it's a lazy tag that refuses to engage with his admittedly complex and occasionally troubling perspective on and relationship with women. The irony is that he was probably responsible for the creation of more memorable, dynamic female characters in classic Hollywood (particularly the fifties) than almost any of his contemporaries (bar Billy Wilder, whose attitude towards women strikes me as equally problematic). However, with 'Marnie', the charges begin to stick. The power imbalance of the central relationship, the pathologising of the female, the sexual violence against women - it reads like a feminist film-theory tick-list.

It isn't as simple as that, of course, but there's a tendency for critics to be a little mealy-mouthed about what is going on in this film. Rape is made justifiable (although it isn't quite justified). The women are all damaged or perverse; Hitchcock claimed Connery's character is just as sick, but the film avoids pathologising him in the same way. There's a thread of something genuinely unpleasant in this film, and in fairness it wouldn't work if there wasn't. The rape scene is the most discomforting scene in all of Hitchcock's work, and my knee-jerk reaction is to wish it wasn't there. However, the way it conveys the horror of the violation without graphically depicting it (and thus turning it into a voyeuristic spectacle) may be the most impressive aspect of the film. This is the only 'classic' Hollywood film I can think of that treats rape seriously, as opposed to as a plot detail. The pity is that the film ultimately neglects the consequences beyond Marnie's immediate reaction.

The film certainly provokes wildly divergent responses, and some pretty complex readings. This isn't just a matter of viewer response - the film encourages it. The bad taste it leaves in many people's mouths (my own included) seems deliberate, and it is for that reason that I give it the benefit of the doubt.

The performances are more easily defensible. Despite a lot of criticism, Tippi Hedren gives a really potent performance as Marnie. At times she wavers, bordering on the hysterical or the arch, but then this a more challenging role than her debut in 'The Birds'. She nails the role in ninety percent of the scenes. Connery seems deliberately miscast, but he's rarely been this interesting since. Again, there are wobbles - he does better by Mark's dark sexuality than by his easy charm (which comes off as patronising) - but it remains a career high point. The scene stealer, though, is Diane Baker as Lil. I've never seen the actress this well cast before - she seems to have been underused all the way through her career. She has the unusual benefit of an actual character arc, rare among Hitchcock's minor characters, although it is rather muffled by her absence at the climax. In her final scenes, we can see her coming to comprehend the depths of Marnie's trauma, and anticipate a more supportive relationship between the two in future. Hitchcock, alas, has no interest in that. I'm always left wanting more of this elfin, mischievous character - and the actress who plays her.

There are some striking sequences in the film - particularly the opening shot - but the fake looking backdrops are a mistake. I've never heard a really good justification for them (you can evoke unreality or superficiality without making your film look so darned tacky). The montage of the horse crashing over the wall may be the single most risible moment in Hitchcock's prolific career.

Marnie is unquestionably successful in one respect - it gets under the viewer's skin like no other film of its period. I can't think of another film that provokes such queasy - yet rapt - attention. My own feelings about it are deeply ambivalent. I don't love it - or like it, really - and yet I can't dismiss it. My opinions about it shift with every viewing - and I keep going back to it.

One these days I'm hoping to find 'Sexual Aberrations of the Criminal Female' in a second-hand bookshop, but so far I'm still looking.

The flawed masterpiece to end all flawed masterpieces; the most mystifying thing about Hitchcock's most controversial film is that people rarely comment on just how good Diane Baker is or ever suggests that Marnie simply batted for the other side (although she wouldn't be the first woman in history who simply preferred horses to people).

Had I been asked, I would have said that I had watched Marnie before today - but having just caught it on TV, I think at most I have only seen parts of the movie before.

This is a flawed film, with many inconsistencies and unanswered questions. Tippi Hedren, perfect as the incredibly vulnerable and damaged Marnie, hardly puts a foot wrong. Sean Connery as her husband of inconvenience gravitates between compassion and downright thuggery on occasions....I suppose one cannot blame Mr Connery for this, he was struggling in a role that would have confused any other actor in the part. If anyone in the movie is unbelievable, it is Connery - his Scotish accent was totally out of place, as was that of his father (strictly British)in a film set in the US...Diane Baker was the only one who sounded as if she belonged there. Some of the dialogue is so stilted and ridiculous that I found myself smiling in embarrassment - some of the editing is verging on the amateurish.

And yet...and yet....it is compelling viewing in spite of the psychological gobbeldegook, in spite of the fact that it was obvious (to this viewer at least)what had happened in Marnie's childhood, in spite of the fact that the Connery character became less likable as the movie progressed and in spite of the dreadful backdrops and corny dialogue. There still was something of the old Hitchcock magic - he manages to make us care about what happens to these wacky people. That Marnie probably ended up in the nuthouse and Mark more than likely found someone else to manipulate is inconsequential. I am glad that I finally sat and watched Marnie - it was made to entertain - and despite all of the above faults - it achieved its purpose.