Steineded How sad is this?

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

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

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

PlanetBloopy Hitchcock's Jamaica Inn strays from Daphne du Maurier's dark novel, instead resembling an Enid Blyton adventure with a body count. To some that's a deal-breaker, but for me it evokes all of the dated stories I read growing up. The scruffy smugglers and the squire with his outrageous eyebrows, Mary's determination to overcome them, and especially the gloomy atmosphere. It's all absolutely charming.The shipwreck scenes are tense. The comic relief is on par with some of the best Hitchcock films. The squire mocks his guests and has his horse paraded into his dining room. Uncle Joss insists his wife carries Mary's luggage inside, only to then grab it himself and hurl it two thirds of the way up the stairs. What might've been a simple drama is turned into an entertaining caper deserving of cult film status. The one complaint I have is that O'Hara shrieking "Aunt Patience Aunt Patience" is as grating as nails on a chalkboard.

joe-pearce-1 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!

atlasmb The last film directed in England by Alfred Hitchcock, "Jamaica Inn" was produced, in part, by Charles Laughton.The story, adapted from a novel by Daphne Du Maurier, begins with a beautiful young woman named Mary (Maureen O'Hara) traveling by coach through a stormy night to meet her estranged aunt and uncle, who reside at Jamaica Inn--a place feared by outsiders. Her aunt Patience receives her with open arms, but Uncle Joss is a leering sort whose associates and business enterprises are suspect.Sir Humphrey Pengallan (Charles Laughton) is a landowner and the region's seat of justice. He represents refined, indulgent nobility. Laughton insisted that the size of his role be increased, effectively changing the film from a whodunit to a suspense film that is part character study. Hitchcock was disappointed, but I think Laughton was correct in casting himself as Pengallan rather than Joss (as originally planned) and then maximizing his role. Laughton's Pengallan is a complex character who displays cunning, eccentricity, and levels of mystery. Despite himself, Hitchcock delivers a film of atmosphere and style. He abstains from his usual cameo, but his hands are all over this moody work of suspense that was a box office hit.After the production of "Jamaica Inn", Laughton and O'Hara would go to Hollywood to produce the wonderful "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." Hitchcock would also be lured to Hollywood with the intention of creating a film about The Titanic, but instead would direct "Rebecca", an adaptation of another Du Maurier novel.

utgard14 Alfred Hitchcock's last film made in the UK before heading to the US is one of his worst. It's a period thriller (light on thrills) about a gang of criminals who cause shipwrecks on the coast in order to steal the cargo and kill the surviving crew. The gang uses a spooky inn as a headquarters to meet and discuss their shipwrecking schemes. The film opens strong but once Charles Laughton's character appears, things start to unravel. Laughton is usually cited as one of the main reasons why this movie is so flawed. Laughton was one of the producers on the film and evidently interfered with Hitchcock at every turn. Without even knowing the story behind the production, it's easy to lay primary blame at Laughton's doorstep while watching this. He's over the top and campy; often comical to the point that it's impossible for Hitchcock to effectively build any suspense. There are some nice atmospheric moments with howling winds and stormy nights and the like. But the atmosphere is undone by Laughton's ridiculousness. The unconvincing makeup and fake nose don't help. The rest of the cast isn't that much better, with master ham Leslie Banks overacting as much as possible and a stiff Maureen O'Hara as the heroine. Maureen's as lovely as ever but, this being one of her earliest roles, her acting is pretty limited. It's a flawed movie with many boring stretches, too much bad acting, and mysteries that are not very mysterious. Still, it's Hitchcock so there are enough interesting things going on to warrant a look. But you'll likely be satisfied with just one look.