Jamaica Inn (1939) User Reviews

Rich cinematic flourishes and a realistic atmosphere on screen

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 17 April 2006]

Even though it is one of the weakest works of Hitchcock, the film surprisingly provides rich cinematic flourishes. For a 1939 film, it captures on screen the atmosphere and dark mood of the novel quite vividly—the stormy scene, the cave, and the inn (with the name board flapping in the wind). It is another matter that the albino parson of the book is transformed into a squire (with an unbelievable eyebrow make-up) in the film who commands his steed to be brought inside his dining hall. Daphne du Maurier's novel was adapted for cinema by the trio of Sidney Gilliat, Joan Harrison and J.B. Priestley, and reportedly the author did not approve of the end-product.

As in many Hitchcock films there is a recurring reference to marriage. Here a good woman remains faithful to her boorish and cruel husband through thick and thin.

As in most Hitchcock films there is a lot of sexual innuendo without any sex on screen, especially when Pengallen (Charles Laughton) makes the young girl (Maureen O'Hara) his prisoner. (The only film where Hitchcock showed sex on screen was "Frenzy.") And as in many a Hitchcock film, a bad guy turns out to be a good guy. This is one of the rare films of Hitchcock where the director does not make a cameo appearance.

The best cinematic flourishes were—-the focus on the thin hands of the 17 year old who cannot be shackled by the soldiers as the handcuffs are too big, the opening "prayer" that serves as a grim introduction and finally the last scene of the film: Chadwick, the squire's butler, who thinks he can hear his dead master calling him for help in death.

It May Not be Psycho, But ....

[richard-mason · 7/10 · 15 January 2003]

After years of hearing that this was one of, if not THE worst Hitchcock picture, finally seeing it was a pleasant surprise.

Sure, it's an unfamiliar genre for him (Under Capricorn would have to be the closest, and it really IS one of his worst), but it is a rollicking, exciting adventure romp, if you stop expecting it to be a Hitchcock masterpiece.

In the famous interview with Truffaut, Hitchcock dismisses the film very quickly, blaming its failure on Charles Laughton, who was co- producer and star, and brought in J B Priestley to build up his part. But it is SUCH an enjoyable performance --- over the top yes, this is Laughton we're talking about --but absolutely relishing his role as the hypocrotical magistrate who is secretly head of the smuggling gang. (Not really a SPOILER, it's revealed early in the picture .... too early for Hitchcock's liking.) And the delight he takes in tying up his female prisoner must surely be equally a reflection of Hitch's obsessions, as much as the character's.

Maureen O'Hara, making her debut, looks ravishing, but is far too healthy and robust and ACTIVE (and brunette) to be considered your typical Hitchcock heroine.

But you only have to watch the cutting in the opening scene of the first shipwreck to know that this is certainly the same man who gave us the shower scene in Psycho.

I disagree with Hitchcock

[cricketbat · 6/10 · 31 December 2018]

Some have ranked Jamaica Inn among the worst of Hitchcock's films, including Hitchcock himself, but I don't think it's that bad. The story is interesting, and I think Maureen O'Hara does a great job as the plucky protagonist, while Charles Laughton holds my attention whenever he's on the screen. I don't understand why this film is so disliked.

A classic for Laughton fans

[Bruno Morphet · 24 May 2001]

While this picture is not one of Hitchcock's more memorable pieces, it is nevertheless well worth a look simply to view the acting genius of Charles Laughton. The man is larger than life as the revolting yet oddly fascinating Sir Humphrey and provides the audience with far more insight into the character than a lesser actor might have done. This is not simply a one-dimensional villain that we are so used to seeing in British movies of this period. In addition to a superb reading of the script, Laughton is clearly ad-libbing in various scenes, further breaking down hitherto scrupulously maintained boundaries between audience and actor. I urge anyone who is weary of today's usual line-up of blockbuster big names to observe a true master at work and wonder where it all went wrong!

Underrated Work of Alfred Hitchcock

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 28 November 2009]

In the Nineteenth Century, in Cornwall, a group of pirates leaded by Joss Merlyn (Leslie Banks) uses false beacon to misguide ships to wreck on the rocks of the coast; then they kill the survivors to rob the cargo and gather in the Jamaica Inn, a place of ill fame. When the Irish orphan Mary Yellen (Maureen O'Hara) travels to Jamaica Inn to live with her aunt Patience (Marie Ney), the coachmen of her stagecoach refuses to stop in the infamy inn, and Mary asks for help in the house of the magistrate of the Justice of the Peace Humphrey Pengallan (Charles Laughton) that rides with her to the inn. Her aunt had not received her letter but lodges her in a room. During the night, Mary overhears the pirates hanging their mate Trehearne (Robert Newton); however, she saves his life and escapes with him. They run to the house of Sir Humphrey, where Treheame identifies himself as Officer of Law. However, they do not know that sophisticated and arrogant Sir Humphrey Pengallan is the head of the gang of pirates.

"Jamaica Inn" is an underrated work of Alfred Hitchcock. The story is too dark, especially considering that it was released in 1939. The cinematography in black white is magnificent, and Charles Laughton has an awesome performance in the role of the ambiguous Sir Humphrey Pengallan. Maureen O'Hara is also amazing in an unusual role in 1939 of a strong woman in her first lead role. The DVD released in Brazil by Continental Distributor has 89:41 minutes running time and it is visible the edition of the movie when Mary and Trehearne are lodged by Sir Humphrey. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Estalagem Maldita" ("The Damned Inn")

Connoisseurs of ripe acting may enjoy this one. Laughton outdoes Laughton as Sir Humphrey Pengallan

[Terrell-4 · 7/10 · 18 February 2008]

If sinking your teeth into over-ripe fruit is one of your pleasures, then Jamaica Inn should be your dish. It features one of the ripest and most ludicrous performances I've ever seen from Charles Laughton as Sir Humphrey Pengallan, and that covers a lot of territory. As the squire who is the full-figured mastermind behind a gang of murderous wreckers on the Cornish coast, Laughton sports the latest dandyish fashions, a false nose, false eyebrows which almost have lives of their own, a carefully coifed comb-over, a piggish over-bite and line readings that would make Bette Davis at her most mannered envious. Close behind in the ripe playing sweepstakes is Robert Newton as Jem Trehearne, law officer and hero, who roles his eyes almost as much as Laughton, and Leslie Banks as Joss Merlyn, the leader of the gang and the owner of Jamaica Inn. The only person who manages reasonably well is Maureen O'Hara who plays Mary, the plucky and beautiful niece of Merlyn's wife. Even she is largely confined to earnestly crying out for decency and screaming.

Don't get me wrong. Jamaica Inn is so over-the-top it's a delight to watch, especially when Laughton is chewing the scenery. Hitchcock, making his last movie in England before leaving for the United States, supposedly became so bored during filming that he didn't care what the actors did. The story is a bodice-ripper by Daphne de Maurier; in fact, Maureen O'Hara's bodice gets ripped not once but twice. The time is about 1800. The place is Cornwall on the rocky coast. Jamaica Inn is a stone hulk of a building close by the warning light that shows ships where to avoid the rocks in the stormy seas. Someone with advance knowledge of ships with rich cargoes has been blocking the warning light. When the ships founder, wreckers work their way to the ships, slaughter all the sailors and take the cargo. Merlyn and his gang are the heavies, but who is the mastermind? Then young Mary, whose parents have died, shows up late one night at Jamaica Inn's doorstep to be taken in my her aunt, Merlyn's wife. At the same time we learn that the gang has a ringer in its midst, an officer of the law determined to bring justice to Cornwall and identify the mastermind. We also learn (this is no spoiler; we find out very early in the movie) that the mastermind is the effete, mannered Sir Humphrey. It all comes together with madness and murder on the wind, switching from Jamaica Inn and the rain-swept coast to Sir Henry's elegant mansion and his imperious demands. "Listen Merlyn," Sir Humphrey says, "I want money. I know what to do with money when I have it which is why I must have it. Do you understand? I must have it!"

The movie looks great. There are crashing seas, stormy nights and coaches drawn by galloping horses. Jamaica Inn itself has that detailed, threatening look that Hitchcock achieved with the wind mill in Foreign Correspondent. Stone stairways go up and down, nothing fits well, shutters rattle in the wind. The scenery chewing isn't confined to the leads, either. The gang members get their moments, too, especially Emlyn Williams as Harry, an invariably cheery and dirty young man with a knife. The movie rises or falls, however, not on Hitchcock but on Laughton...and Laughton is so ripe he's spellbinding. You have to see him to appreciate his way with these words, spoken to a bound and gagged Mary, "We may be going a long way, you know. Nearer the sun, of course...the Isles of Greece. You're thinking that'll cost money, but I have enough. One must have enough. I always knew that to live like a gentleman, spaciously and with elegance, one must have money...and a few beautiful possessions, of course, like you, my deah." Sir Humphrey's last words bring the movie to a satisfyingly ornate ending: "Make way for Pengallan!"

Rousing

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 11 September 2008]

If it weren't for the cinematography we wouldn't recognize Hitchcock. He must have liked Daphne DuMaurier, using the Birds and Rebecca later. This is just a pretty confusing, pedestrian film, with some great actors. The story is, however, quite bland. It involves the arrival of a beautiful young woman at the evil Jamaica Inn. The inn is the hiding place for a band of pirates who lure ships unto the rocks,murder the crew, and pillage. The head of the organization is Charles Laughton at his pompous, window, Henry VIII best. He is in control of every scene, overacting and winking at the audience. The young woman is caught up in her trust for this man, and finds herself in his clutches by the end of the movie. The rest of the band, including Robert Newton (A-a-a-r) from Treasure Island are quite photogenic. It's an OK movie but just a little too much to swallow. I had always been curious with it and am investigating the Hitchcock films I had never seen.

Not really "Jamaica Inn"... We're in The Charles Laughton Picture Show here!

[HenryHextonEsq · 6/10 · 18 January 2004]

(Spoilers possibly inherent)

I had no idea this film would prove such a curio and nigh-on almighty hoot to watch. I settled back on a familiar settee, late one night - after a meal at the finest Indian restaurant I know, Ocean Rd., South Shields, and after watching the heartening second "Office Christmas Special" - to play this film on DVD, a Christmas present from a good friend. Ironies are even in that; I bought him a DVD of the 1962 Robert Mulligan-directed "To Kill A Mockingbird": both that Harper Lee novel and Daphne Du Maurier's "Jamaica Inn" were texts we studied at school in our English lessons. They were by far the most enjoyable of the texts we studied in those five years - though I admit a partiality for "Cider With Rosie" and "Jane Eyre".

It was all for the better that I knew little of what this film was like; I knew only that it was directed by Mr Hitchcock, and differed quite a lot from the book. Oh, and how it does differ!

Quite frankly, Hitchcock's "Jamaica Inn" is a different thing altogether to that utterly splendid, barnstorming tale of smuggling. This misses the uncanny, eerie quality of Du Maurier's plotting and characterisation. Here, Joss Merlyn is only a slight reprobate; he is softened and thoroughly reduced in size and dimensions compared to Du Maurier's conception of him in her novel. There Joss was a towering, bullish, walking-talking threat of a man. Leslie Banks sadly fails to capture any of the preposterous, swaggering bravado of the Joss Merlyn forever etched into my mind.

That is really the biggest failing in writing, casting or such like. The more general approach too fails to ignite; the conceptualisation of a desolate Cornish coast is reasonable but unspectacular. there's never quite enough misty, frightening (or frightened) atmosphere; one does not get enough sense of things being at stake as they were in the novel: life and death, hell for leather. A further bone to pick is certainly the strangely wimpy portrayals of the crew of cutthroats and local degenerates; another failure of conception.

Maureen O'Hara... well, the damsel is feisty to an effective degree and acquits herself well, though is oddly over-mannered at times. It is an odd performance, that is half very effective, and half ineffectual. Now, Robert Newton; that wonderfully hammy actor of renown is excellent here as the dashing Jem Merlyn figure. He is one of the few performers to seem as if he is on anything like the same wavelength as Charles Laughton.

Charles Laughton? Well, he absolutely strides away with this film, and that is no understatement. This is so, to such an extent that his own vision overwhelms whatever there may have been of Hitchcock's, or indeed Du Maurier's. He plays Sir Humphrey Penhalligon - standing in effectively for the novel's eerie albino vicar, Francis Davey - a thoroughly sneaky, grandiose aristocrat, who is quite wonderfully playing the people of his county for outright fools. He doesn't so much as administer justice as pick and choose allies and inevitably seek to further his own ends. Sir Humphrey's condescending, subtle contempt for those around him sublimely passes the other characters by, while the audience is in on it. One feels entirely complicit in the seemingly jovial fellow's gleeful tricks and crimes; Laughton almost tangibly winks at the audience with his every sideways glance and jocund intonation. What Victorian Melodrama villainy is in the man here; implicitly sending up the limitations of all that is around him by claiming the centre of attention and having so much comedic fun from his privileged position. It completely unbalances any chance of us finding the wrecking *that* serious, as he is an obvious villain from the start, and unlike the otherworldly Francis Davey, Penhalligon is someone we can relate to. His intentions are selfish, but born of a paternalistic High Toryism; the character is manifestly a cultural and social elitist. He does not want to destroy the existing world, but to be happy in it. Only of course, his methods and complete disregard for others are 'not the way to go about it', tut-tut!

The ending simply lives up to what has become a Laughton picture; the narrative of the novel has been almost wholly jettisoned by this juncture, and our - or mine, anyway - interest in solely in hoping that the wicked Sir Humphrey will get away with his arrant, errant audacity. Suffice to say, Mary Yellan is not in our minds in the final frames, which are beautifully melodramatic and distinctly odd.

I can only conclude by saying just how much I enjoyed watching this film, late that night, recently... It was glorious fun, entirely due to the magnificent Charles Laughton. It is awful overall, if one is looking for a "Jamaica Inn" close to Du Maurier's great original; but one actor manages to steal the fairly creaky show and catapult it off onto a higher stage. Oh, there's no internal consistency here, but that's part of the delight! A part-marvellous fudge of a film; at least never dull, due to Laughton.

Laughton and O'Hara give sensational acting in this costume/adventure film by the genius Hitchcock

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 12 June 2006]

At the beginning XIX century , Cornualles , where rules and inquisitive judge , Sir Humphrey Pengallan (Charles Laughton) . There is going a young orphan called Mary (a gorgeous Mauren O'Hara is eighteen years old) to live with her uncle (Leslie Banks) , owner of the Jamaica Inn . Soon afterwards , she is realized the inn is the base of a band of criminals who are planning shipwrecks on the rocky coast for rob it .

This nice picture is a costume drama with action , suspense , romance , adventures , tension and formidable interpretation . It's a romantic story with exciting images narrated in amazing agility and swiftly ; thus it happens : murders , storms , shipwrecks , escapes , pursuits... The film along with ¨Walzes from Vienna¨(1934) and ¨Under Capricorn¨(1949) is one from trio Hitchcock's epoch tales . And it is the first of Daphne of Maurier adaptations along with ¨Rebeca¨ and ¨The birds¨. Although Alfred Hitchcock was unhappy with the script and Charles Laughton's performance , still he experimented on this film just as he did on his previous film , The lady vanishes (1938) . Hitchcock had problems with Charles Laugthon (1899-1962), both of whom had a difficult and obstinate character and they bore remarkable physical resemblance . Besides , the sadomasochist relation between Laughton and Mauren O'Hara reflects the tempestuous relationship Hitchcock had with this actress .

Evocative photography in black and white . Hitchcock and cinematographer Harry Stradling Jr. gave the film a darker look in order to make it very atmospheric . Stradling later worked with Hitchcock in Mr and Mrs Smith (1941) and Suspicion (1941) . This movie has background music only at the beginning and the end This is the last film from Hitchcock's British career . Soon afterward this movie , Hitchcock was contracted by the great producer David O.Selznick (Gone with the wind) for the direction of the hit smash ¨Rebeca¨. He started the plenty successful American career and no returning to England until ¨Frenzy¨ (1972).

"You'll find out Mr. Law Officer."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 31 March 2008]

Somewhat unusual for a Hitchcock film, I found myself drawn in and actually enjoyed it. I think that probably had all to do with the performance of Charles Laughton as the haughty squire, Sir Humphrey Pengallan. There's no two ways about his wickedness, he's a perfect cad - just catch the way he sizes up Maureen O'Hara's character when she first makes her appearance at his home. And oh, those eyebrows! - you'll marvel at the makeup job that just adds to the extreme of Laughton's over acting. Oh, and one other thing - it's hard to understand what he's saying sometimes, but he's so entertaining in the delivery that you just don't seem to mind so much.

The story itself deals with a band of cutthroats, thieves and smugglers on the Cornish Coast of England, while the dark and moody atmosphere of the picture gives it the feel of a pirate film that mostly takes place on land. Laughton's Pengallan is the mastermind that pulls the strings on waylaying ships to their doom on the stormy coastline. Robert Newton appears as the anti-pirate in this one, and after narrowly escaping death at the hands of Joss Merlyn's (Leslie Banks) rowdy bunch, he takes charge to bring Pengallan to his ultimate demise.

Here's something to keep an eye out for. After Trehearne (Newton) and Mary (O'Hara) escape from the villains by swimming out to their boat, they wind up seeking refuge at Pengallan's home. While still in his soaking clothes, Trehearne pulls a dry folded piece of paper from his pocket. How'd he do that?

As most of the comments on this board suggest, the film deserves a chance, even if it doesn't hold up well for the professional critics. The best way to view it would probably be late at night, with a nice warm brandy to take off the evening chill. A dark and stormy night would do just fine in keeping with the on screen atmosphere. I think Pengallan would agree.

No Bad Clergymen in America

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 9 January 2006]

According to Maureen O'Hara's memoirs, Alfred Hitchcock never liked to do period costume pieces, he felt those were not suitable to his particular talents. But he did this one for Daphne Du Maurier because he wanted to film Du Maurier's Rebecca later on. Which as we all know Hitchcock did and was very successful.

There are elements of Jamaica Inn that certainly might have appealed to Hitchcock. Maureen O'Hara arrives at the Jamaica Inn on Great Britain's Cornwall coast to stay with her aunt. The Inn however is the headquarters for a gang that wrecks ships on the coast, kills everyone on board and steals the cargo. Leslie Banks is the head of the group there. We also have a Georgian dandy in the person of Charles Laughton who has a lascivious eye for Maureen O'Hara. He's not what he appears to be. The whole idea of this innocent among the cutthroats not knowing who to trust would definitely have appealed to Hitchcock.

The original novel had Laughton's character as a hypocritical parson, but for American distribution his character was changed to a local nobleman. The Hays office forbade a man of the cloth be shown in such a light.

Parson or nobleman unfortunately Hitchcock did not rein in Laughton. In this particular film, he's just too hammy. Then again he was the co-producer of this so no one was in a position to tell him anything.

O'Hara credits Laughton for launching her career. He brought her to America right after this and had RKO sign her to play Esmerelda in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. A far better film than Jamaica Inn.

Robert Newton and Emlyn Williams have roles of substance here as well. Jamaica Inn might be worth a look.

Enjoyable Thriller from Two British Heavyweights!

[mikhail080 · 8/10 · 14 September 2010]

In my attempt to catch up with everything directed by the brilliant Alfred Hitchcock, I put in my disk three of "Alfred Hitchcock: The Legend Begins." This is a fantastic box set that contains all (as far as I know) of his films from the U.K pre 1940. I had never seen "Jamaica Inn," and greatly looked forward to the experience -- if only for the first oddball pairing of Charles Laughton and Maureen O'Hara who were both soon to be immortalized in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." Hitchcock is unable to disappoint his audience. What we find here is a spooky tale set in Cornwall in the early 19th Century, based loosely on a novel by Daphne Du Maurier -- who goes uncredited. Story features a murderous gang of hoodlums who prey upon ships that seek shelter in a nearby harbor during hazardous storms. The films opens with an exciting sequence depicting this activity which functions almost as a prologue to everything that follows, and really draws the audience into the story. Disturbing, dark and frightening as this prologue is, one can only wonder what will follow.

Next, in scenes perhaps inspired by Tod Browning's Dracula, a careening carriage whisks young Maureen O'Hara through the pitch black night. She insists that the driver deliver her to the Jamaica Inn, but he outright refuses to do so, and speeds right by the place. He lets her off nearby at the home of one Squire Pengallon, who he says will care for her. The haughty squire is played of course by Charles Laughton, who employs his unctuous charm to reassure the nonplussed O'Hara that all will be all right, and that he will escort her to her Aunt and Uncle at Jamaica Inn. Maureen O'Hara soon discovers that her Uncle functions as the ringleader of the gang, and her abused but devoted Aunt is an enabler to his illicit lifestyle.

From what I've read, Hitchcock wasn't too fond of this film, and didn't care for the direction Laughton took with his character. Nevertheless, Laughton remains fascinating to watch, as much of a "ham" as he is. His Squire registers as somewhat of a pathetic and yet supremely conceited character, and the ultimate revelation of what he's capable of comes as a real stunner. O'Hara is of course beautiful and feisty, as demonstrates that she has much more heart than just any glamorous young girl posing prettily for the camera.

A special mention should go to Emlyn Williams, who plays a despicable but magnetic ringleader of the cutthroat gang. I was really surprised and entertained by his contemporary attitude and swagger, which wouldn't seem out-of-place in a movie from the 21st Century.

So, a minor Hitchcock certainly, but also as good a thriller as anyone else was making at the time.

**** out of *****

Its highlight is the large cast of British character actors of the time

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 1 January 2023]

Hitchcock's last British film before moving to America was this uncredited adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's novel. In 19th century Cornwall, refined young woman Mary Yellen (Maureen O'Hara) arrives to visit her aunt, only to find that she's married to the loutish Joss Merlyn (Leslie Banks), who runs a gang of cutthroats who cause shipwrecks on the nearby coast in order to loot their cargo. Joss is secretly in league with the vain, mentally-deranged local nobleman Sir Humphrey Pengallan (Charles Laughton), while an investigator (Robert Newton) has gone undercover into the gang in order to bring them all to justice.

Laughton was also the producer on this, and he and Hitchcock butted heads on everything, with Laughton switching roles (he was originally set to play the part Banks ended up with) and then demanding multiple re-writes to enlarge his new role as the mad Sir Humphrey. I'm a fan of Laughton's, but here he's rather awful. O'Hara, who gets an "introducing" credit although she'd had a few minor bit roles before this, looks nice but doesn't have a lot to do but act scared or horrified. Hitchcock reportedly thought she was a terrible actress, but Laughton insisted that she be cast, and he took to America to appear with him in The Hunchback of Notre Dame next. As for Jamaica Inn, it's only highlight for me is the large cast of British character actors of the time.

Side note: In a bonus feature interview of Hitchcock on one of the Criterion discs, the director is quoted as saying, "I tell filmmakers to try and avoid filming four things: dogs, babies, motorboats, and Charlie Laughton."

Hitchock's weakest film but not without its good points

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 2 April 2013]

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

For once Robert Newton as a HERO!

[countryway_48864 · 29 August 2001]

Most people tend to remember Robert Newton as Long John Silver, a role he perfected long after he gave up as an actor.

Jamaica Inn is an early film and here you see a fine looking Newton with the longest, darkest eyelashes I have ever seen on a man.

A side note: Not too long before Jamaica Inn was made, a scout for Sam Goldwyn spotted Newton in London and thought he would be perfect for the role of Heathcliff in the up-coming Wuthering Heights. Newton tested for the role and everyone but Goldwyn was thrilled. Goldwyn though Newton was "too ugly" to play Heathcliff, although everyone else thought he combined the emotional intensity and the black gypsy look that was perfect for that role. Eventually, Laurence Olivier was cast. He admitted that he always believed, his great friend, Newton would have been better, darker and more naturally dangerous as Heathcliff. I often wonder how Newton's career would have changed had he been given the role of Heathcliff.

Hitchcock takes advantage of the dual danger/kindness elements of Newton's personality to create a memorable hero. A young and lovely Maureen O'Hara is cast as the woman who comes to live with her Aunt after the death of her mother, only to discover she is in a den of cut-throats. She witnesses Newton being hung and just manages to save his life. Charles Laughton lends his special talent for seeming to one sort of person while actually being something quite different and Hitchcock rolls all these characters and a marvelous Leslie Banks, into a fine tumble of thievery and honor, love and loyalty, crime and punishment.

There are many of the familiar Hitchcock touches to move things along.

The climax is a bit over-the-top, but it affords Laughton a marvelous few moments.

Jamaica Inn has been re-made several times, but no one can replace Hitchcock, Newton, O'Hara and Banks.

Not a real Hitchcock, more like a real Laughton

[max von meyerling · 6/10 · 22 August 2005]

JAMAICA INN is one of the Hitchcock films which might be said not to be a Hitchcock film. Its not that one or two 'Hitchcockian' elements are missing but almost all are missing. JAMAICA INN is adapted from a Daphne Du Maurier novel and was his last English film. Hitchcock's next film and his first American film would be REBECCA also from a Du Maurier novel. He would later go on to direct another film from a Du Maurier original, THE BIRDS, so there is no incompatibility there. The writers were the usual Hitchcock suspects from his English period. Frequent collaborator Sidney Gilliat and long serving Joan Harrison, later the producer of Hitch's TV show, as well as wife Alma Reville, were credited along with J.B. Priestly who gets an additional dialogue credit.

The villain of the piece, Charles Laughton, as the unlikely Sir Humphrey Pengallan, the local magistrate on the Cornish coast, is revealed almost immediately. The hero however is obscured for the first reel. The film is built around Laughton and he chews the scenery most wonderfully. It is essentially his picture, the producer, Erich Pommer, a German refugee and one of the founders of famous UFA studios, was Laughton's house producer. Priestly must have been brought in to goose up Laughton's dialogue. Another factor making this film sort of the anti-Hitchcock is the lack of humor whether provided by the situation or the mixing of classes. Laughton is funny, in a way, though he could have been funnier if he had gone completely over the top. As such there is a bit too much naturalism in Laughton's portrait of a Regency rake straight from the Hellfire Club, gone to seed and off his head with greed, rather like the last panel in a Hogarth series of etchings. While Hitchcock villains could be unspeakably cruel they always had a modicum of wit to go along with it.

Think of Otto Kruger in SABOTEUR and most especially James Mason in NORTH BY NORTHWEST issuing the foulest threats is the most cultured and dulcet tones. Laughton never gets this type of exchange going : (from NORTH BY NORTHWEST) Roger Thornhill: Apparently the only performance that will satisfy you is when I play dead. Phillip Vandamm: Your very next role, and you'll be quite convincing, I assure you.

For all his facial gymnastics Laughton is pretty straight forward a villain, with only his position to throw people off the scent, something else the real Hitchcock would have found very amusing.

Hitchcock even uses terrible screen clichés without even a special twist or variation on them. Usually Hitchcock will use the audiences expectations to his own advantage. There is the one where some one is about to mention the name of the murderer/villain-in-chief and just as they are about to speak the name a shot rings out and they fall over dead and mute forever. In this case it doesn't even make sense as everyone knows who the villain is but its used anyway because it is always used in this sort of picture. In Charlie Chan pictures it's usually preceded by Number one or number two son exclaiming "Look pop, the lights are flickering" and then blam! the stoolie doesn't get to spill the beans after all and we have another twenty minutes of film for sure. Its as if Hitchcock really just doesn't care.

There is one moment where the film is lifted into the territory rare and wild that bears the special attentions of Hitchcock. I'm sorry to say that it concerns bondage and sadism. The scene has Laughton first gaging Maureen O'Hara and then tying her hands behind her back. It is so effective not because of its graphic nature but because Laughton tells O'Hara what he is going to do before he does it. With the white silken gage pulled taught in her mouth he drapes a hood over her head so that she begins to look like the Virgin Mary bound and gaged. The photography is particularly Germanic here (Pommer and Hitchcock had made THE PLEASURE GARDEN, his first complete film, together in the silent days) and I was reminded not only of the Virgin, but as a Munch like Virgin with her face frozen in anxiety and also the Good Maria from Metropolis. It is a scene which pops out from the rest of the hectic goings on of the rest of the film.

Since its not very good Hitchcock it is rarely shown. Even in this sub genre it is outclassed by Fritz Lang's MOONFLEET or even De Mille's very silly REAP THE WILD WIND. JAMAICA INN was just, as John Ford used to put it, a job of work and Hitch was off to America. Seeing this film made me want to dig out one of my copies of Truffaut's extensive interview with Hitchcock to see what he had to say on the matter. He was usually brief when discussing terrible failures like JAMAICA INN. In sum, it is not a Hitchcock film but a Laughton one.

Robbers, smugglers in a Hitchcock gem.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 7 December 2007]

Director Alfred Hitchcock adapts a Daphine Du Murier novel for the silver screen. Great Black & White atmospheric tale of treachery in Cornwall circa 1800. Young Mary(Maureen O'Hara)seeks out her Aunt Patience(Marie Ney)after her parent's death. She finds shelter from a rainstorm in the home of Sir Humphrey Pengallan(Charles Laughton). Aunt Patience resides at Jamaica Inn, a hideout for a gang of smugglers, who lure ships to crash into the seaside rocks and loot the valuable goods. The bounty is taken to the Jamaica Inn where Aunt Patience's husband Joss(Leslie Banks)divvies up the take. Sir Humphrey will figure big in the dramatic finale. Other players include: Robert Newton, Wylie Watson and Edwin Greenwood.

"That place - Jamaica Inn. It's got a bad name. It's not healthy, that's why"

[Galina_movie_fan · 6/10 · 16 April 2007]

"Jamaica Inn" (1939) is remarkable in many ways as almost every movie directed by the great Alfred Hitchcock. It was the last movie he directed in England before he moved to Hollywood. It was his first screen adaptation of the book by Daphne Du Maurier - his next movie, the Oscar winning "Rebecca" is also based on Du Maurier's novel as well as the later "The Birds" (1963). "Jamaica Inn" introduced 18 years old Maureen O'Hara in her first starring role as Mary, a young orphan girl who arrives to stay with her aunt at the inn located at England's Cornish coast around 1820 to quickly find out that the inn is a headquarters of the of the pirate band. Finally, "Jamaica Inn" was the first collaboration of two cinema giants, Alfred Hitchcock and Charles Laughton. While "Jamaica Inn" may be not the best or most memorable Hitchcock's film, nobody would argue that Laughton, a performer of an incredible range stole the movie as Sir Humphrey Pengallon in the performance that mixes "elegant grossness, gallant and sardonic, pure madness, and certain grandeur to his defiance".

6.5/10

Really? THIS is one of the worst movies ever?

[MissSimonetta · 7/10 · 5 May 2019]

All I can say is that the bar for bad movies must be pretty high.

JAMAICA INN is a weak Hitchcock movie even by the standards of his more primitive period of the 1920s and 1930s, but I don't think it's a bad movie. It lacks much suspense due to having more camp than needed, but the camp is at least fun to watch in the form of Charles Laughton as the greedy, lecherous villain (as he once said, the Code could never censor the gleam in his eye) and his colorful assortment of thugs. Maureen O'Hara has spunk as the heroine and Robert Newton is an interesting choice for a lawful good hero, but they share no chemistry and constantly get overshadowed by the bad guys.

However, even if the movie lacks menace and suspense, it did keep me entertained. I was never frustrated or bored.

Laughton, Not Hitchcock, and So What?(!!!)

[joe-pearce-1 · 7/10 · 30 June 2016]

I gave up reading the other reviews about halfway through as just about everybody thought that Laughton's performance was either absolutely glorious or hideously overdone, while those same reviewers seemed to think that this was either Hitchcock's worst film (or at least a contender for same) or a good effort ruined by Mr. Laughton's excesses. Maybe we should put ourselves back in 1939 and look at everything from that vantage point.

It's seems hard to remember now (and surely nobody ever mentions this, in or out of these reviews), but for the decade of approximately 1932 to 1944 Charles Laughton was arguably the most famous and respected British actor on the planet! Gielgud had some stage fame, and Olivier, Redgrave and Richardson were coming along, while the movies could celebrate Donat and Colman as British romantic idols (with Olivier on the horizon), but it was Laughton who took on the crown increasingly abdicated by George Arliss as Britain's leading actor - at least to the rest of the world. So, when we start to talk about Hitchcock and Laughton, and the latter's possible adverse effects on the former where JAMAICA INN is concerned, it should be remembered that while gaining some international recognition over that period, in 1939 Hitchcock was a virtual non-entity in the worldwide movie-going mind next to Laughton. Laughton didn't need Hitchcock, and Hitchcock may not have needed Laughton, but it was still a feather in any director's cap to snare Laughton for a movie role, and this man who had given astoundingly memorable performances on both sides of the Atlantic in HENRY VIII, RUGGLES OF RED GAP, LES MISERABLES, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, REMBRANDT and VESSEL OF WRATH could only do Hitchcock's career good (his prior stars like Novello, Banks, Donat, Redgrave, and even Gielgud were simply not the things that film legends were made of in 1939, whatever some of them would subsequently become), so that I'm sure that, Laughton being one of the film's producers (although unlisted as such), Hitchcock took on this project knowing full well that it would be a Laughton vehicle before it would be a Hitchcock movie. Oh, yes, in subsequent interviews Hitch might complain of Laughton's performance in the film, but I'd bet my left shoulder that he did no such complaining at any time during the film's making, and that he was simply overjoyed to be working with him.

Having said that, given the screenplay he worked with, Hitchcock did a very creditable job in directing. Yes, we might take note of the miniature ships seen in distance shots, but that was certainly not as bad as some of the cardboard audience members seen in 1934's THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and both the opening and closing storm scenes are beautifully rendered (and the murders in the opening scene quite spectacularly staged). Otherwise, there simply wasn't very much to work with. The only scenes in the film that were really "Hitchcockian" were the heroine's view from above of the hanging of Trahearne and her subsequent cutting of the death rope through the ceiling, and much later, both the understated and unseen release of Trahearne by Joss's wife, and then Maureen O'Hara heroically struggling to raise the flaming warning flare in the midst of a raging gale. The latter could easily stand in for an early 19th century British visual equivalent to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, so stentorian is its presentation, and it is surely the visual highlight of the entire film! (And that Hitchcock should favor a mere female with such a physically courageous act!) Other than for those scenes, the success of the film falls not on the shoulders of Hitchcock, but on the uncannily mesmerizing visage of Charles Laughton in every scene he is in. The latter MAKES the film, so why blame Laughton for its relative failure in terms of Hitchcockian expectations? In 2016, you are simply not seeing (or even ready to expect) what the 1939 film was intended to convey before all else - Laughton's performance!

Warning: If you should be seeing this film on a Pop Flix set called "Deadly Mysteries Collection", be prepared to miss an entire reel between the time that the hero and heroine escape to Pengallon's castle and Trahearne and Pengallon's subsequent arrival at Jamaica Inn, with O'Hara already there, warning her aunt of their intentions. They have simply left it out!

Antiquated drama.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 1 October 2003]

"Jamaica Inn" is a rarity in Hitchcock's filmography: a film that was BEHIND its time (it could have been an early talkie). It is notable only for the hints of sexual perversion one can find in the performances of Charles Laughton and Leslie Banks; in fact, the villains of the piece are much more interesting than the bland heroes. No "Juno and the Paycock", but still one of Hitchcock's weakest. (**)

I liked it.

[DanielWRichardson · 5/10 · 2 May 2008]

This was the first early Hitchcock film that I saw and I liked it. A lot of people complain that it wasn't quite like the book. I hate people who say that. People who say that should watch the movie first then... sorry. I started to rant there. Any ways, people said that this didn't have the mood, atmosphere, and suspense of the book. Which may be true, I didn't read the book. I thought there was plenty of suspense. Like the scene when Mary is looking through the floor cracks as the bad guys get ready to hang one of their own or when they're on the run and end up in that cave. Is it the most suspenseful movie I ever saw? No. But then again I said that I liked it. I didn't say that I loved it. It was an OK movie. I was expecting a mediocre-to-good movie and I wasn't disappointed. As for mood and atmosphere, it was fine. So it's not as moody and dark as the book. Get over it. Wow, this is less of a review and more of me lashing out at the fans of the book. All in all, the movie is fine. I recommend it to fans of Hitchcock. Some people complained about his directing in this one. It was his last film before he went to Hollywood and apparently actor Charles Laughton, who was also the producer, didn't listen to Hitchcock on the set and did his own thing; which caused Hitchcock to say "Screw it." and just coast through. So I agree this isn't up to par with his usual direction, however it ain't bad either. I mean even when he sorta gives up it still turns out OK. So just watch with your expectations low so your not disappointed.

Um... I disagree with most of the comments here...

[seanahalpin · 8/10 · 30 January 2005]

My wife and I had not heard of Jamaica Inn at all prior to buying a DVD collection of Hitchcock's works. We decided to watch the film as the Jamaica Inn is near where my Cornish ancestors lived.

We actually found the film gripping. Yes, the acting is stagy at times, but we always enjoy the "old style" acting. Apart from the dodgy special effects, we found the film quite gripping. Others have said that the Squire was clearly the villain from the start. That is true. The tension comes from us being aware that this is so - and watching as the hero and heroine become ensnared by him. Similarly, the almost constant night time scenes and the howling gales are oppressive and eerie...

Critics may say that the film is not as good as Psycho or The Birds. However, this film was made 20 years prior to those films. I think that it was a good effort, considering that it was made on the eve of WWII.

Make Way For Pengallan!!!!!

[kinojunkie · 7/10 · 19 July 2007]

What starts as an action packed cut-throat jamboree overflowing with absolutely incredible atmosphere quickly becomes a stagy film with too much talking. It's not without it's humorous jabs at both the upper and lower class and although it's rather over the top, Charles Laughton's performance is almost enough to carry the film alone. There are some surprisingly dark moments (both in light and tone) particularly the opening scene and the nighttime exterior shots are simply magical. Strangely lacking in some of the more distinctive camera techniques one would expect from Hitchcock, Jamaica Inn overall is still an enjoyable watch – just slow.

Dull,....unbelievably dull!!!

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 25 July 2006]

I had heard about this movie from Harry Medved's fantastic book THE FIFTY WORST FILMS OF ALL-TIME, as it is one of the 50. Because of that, I probably had a slight predisposition to dislike the film--though I liked it more than Medved, as it was not even close to being that bad! But, I could easily see that Medved's recounting of how the film was made would conspire to make a poor movie. Apparently, Alfred Hitchcock was the director of this film, but Charles Laughton was both the star and owned the production company. Apparently, again and again, Laughton ignored his director and instead of a subtle or believable performance, he was shrill and bellicose--looking nothing like the great actor he was in some of his other films. In fact, I noticed in several of his early films, Laughton yelled his lines and over-acted terribly and without a director in firm control, I could really see it impact the film. Plus, apparently, in disgust, Hitchcock pretty much gave up on the film and quickly completed it so he could leave England for Hollywood. If this troubled production in any way contributed to his decision to leave the UK, I just don't know.

Apart from the overacting by Laughton, the biggest problem is that I expected a mystery or suspense film. But, as the "secrets" of the film were revealed in the first few minutes (duh--it was pretty obvious that young Maureen O'Hara had walked into a nest of vipers), there was no suspense or mystery at all. Like the silly nose that Laughton wore throughout the film, the movie just seemed fake and silly--just not bottom 50 bad--maybe bottom 250!