Three or so years ago, I was under the notion that Alfred Hitchcock had never made a bad film. Admittedly, that would be true if I had seen every film of his, truth is at the time I had not, and maybe I was rather biased as Hitchcock is my favourite director. While he still is, I do think he has done some bad and disappointing films, but none of them are completely and utterly terrible. Jamaica Inn is perhaps the weakest he did, but I still consider it a disappointing one, considering the talent, rather than terrible. Of course, there are good points, Robert Newton- in a role that couldn't be more different from his performances in Oliver Twist and Treasure Island- is an understated and likable hero, Emlyn Williams is sinister with some droll lines and delivery, there is some nice scenery and the opening shipwreck and ending are exciting.
Maureen O'Hara, in her debut(good historical point), is gorgeous to watch but rather shrill and wooden, and most of the supporting cast is stagy. People will remember the character of Pengallen and will love Charles Laughton as him, but I found him so over-the-top with little attempt to reign in that it harmed the film and seemed as though he was acting for a completely different film. I know Laughton can be hammy and subtle at the same time, he was brilliant in The Paradine Case(also directed by Hitchcock), where his role was much more interesting than here, and Mutiny on the Bounty and Witness for the Prosecution(non-Hitchcock films) were the same. Pengallen is a creepy character sure, but rather one-dimensional. The rest of the characters are also sketchily drawn.
And as much as I love and admire Hitchcock, it did seem as though his heart wasn't in it, it is an unusually pedestrian directing job and has little of his trademark/distinctive directing touches. I'd go as far to say that Jamaica Inn didn't seem like a Hitchcock film but more a Laughton one, that's how much he and his character dominated the film and doing it that way it came at the expense of everything else. The editing lacks finesse, in regard to editing Jamaica Inn is the least well-edited, while the dialogue is stilted and the story tediously paced and confused. The make-up especially for Laughton is garish. Overall, has its good points but for me Hitchcock's weakest. 4/10 Bethany Cox
Maureen O'Hara, in her debut(good historical point), is gorgeous to watch but rather shrill and wooden, and most of the supporting cast is stagy. People will remember the character of Pengallen and will love Charles Laughton as him, but I found him so over-the-top with little attempt to reign in that it harmed the film and seemed as though he was acting for a completely different film. I know Laughton can be hammy and subtle at the same time, he was brilliant in The Paradine Case(also directed by Hitchcock), where his role was much more interesting than here, and Mutiny on the Bounty and Witness for the Prosecution(non-Hitchcock films) were the same. Pengallen is a creepy character sure, but rather one-dimensional. The rest of the characters are also sketchily drawn.
And as much as I love and admire Hitchcock, it did seem as though his heart wasn't in it, it is an unusually pedestrian directing job and has little of his trademark/distinctive directing touches. I'd go as far to say that Jamaica Inn didn't seem like a Hitchcock film but more a Laughton one, that's how much he and his character dominated the film and doing it that way it came at the expense of everything else. The editing lacks finesse, in regard to editing Jamaica Inn is the least well-edited, while the dialogue is stilted and the story tediously paced and confused. The make-up especially for Laughton is garish. Overall, has its good points but for me Hitchcock's weakest. 4/10 Bethany Cox