Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

zkonedog On the surface, "Suspicion" looks like a film that would be a perfect fit for Hitchcock's directorial touch. It contains two star leads, great opportunities for tremendous acting, and even more possibilities for intense drama/suspense. Unfortunately, Hitch fails to cull all those aspects together in this case, instead producing a middling film with a conclusion that will have you wondering if it was all worth it.For a basic plot summary, "Suspicion" sees debonair gentleman Johnnie (Cary Grant) marry the rather practical Lina (Joan Fontaine). After the fabulous courtship, however, Lina discovers that Johnnie is nowhere near what he seemed at first, and that he may even have some murderous intentions in order to get himself out of debt.The trouble with "Suspicion" is twofold:First, none of the character development ends up leading anywhere. I won't give any major spoilers here, but suffice it to say that in the end, you will be severely disappointed with how the characters turn out. In typical "40's cinema" fashion, emotions turn on a dime with no rhyme or reason and are explained away with a single sentence at the end.Secondly, the "suspense" promised us only comes near the very end of the film, and then is quickly ruined by (again) the cop-out ending. The rest of the run-time is filled with scenes that should be building up the two lead characters, but instead amount to waffling back and forth between "Lina loves Johnnie" and "Lina suspects Johnnie".Put simply, "Suspicion" may have thrilled film fans during its time, but it certainly does not hold up well today. I'll give it 2.5 stars because the acting is quite fine throughout, but other than that there just isn't much to get excited about here.

John Brooks What can be said to introduce this one. It's yet another smoothly directed, very well acted mystery Hitchcock with a lingering intrigue that baits the viewer from the beginning to the very end. The dialog is great, Cary Grant excellent in his mad-hatter's type role and Joan Fontaine is too beautiful to be described swiftly enough to fit this summary and portrays her worried, eventually tortured character just right.The story holds in one place solidly and coherently but the developments in the plot make this one vary greatly in pace and dynamics. We see just about what's going on in the bigger picture, but there seems to be so much happening behind the curtains - so to speak. The ending, as almost always with this famous director, is of the most expeditious kind. It fits the film, but clearly it is the bulk of the film as a cinematic experience that matters more than its outcome, as seems to be the case so very often with Hitchcock.

Kirpianuscus first, it is a real interesting film. because, in many scenes it seems be an experiment to mix different pieces from different genres. it is, in same measure, a dark comedy, a thriller, mystery and quiz. the occasion to discover a different Cary Grant, exploring his art for romantic comedy in admirable manner and occasion for Joan Fontain to guide the viewer on the web of innocence, rumors, fear and need to know the truth. the end is a compromise. brutal, uncomfortable but, maybe, part of experiment, solution to escape from the predictability or the scissor of censors. a strange film because it contains the lines who define Hitchcock universe but, in same measure, seems profound different. and, finally, this is far to be a bad thing.

atlasmb In "Suspicion", Hitchcock takes the audience on a ride. The story starts by mixing two seemingly incompatible people--Cary Grant as Johnnie and Joan Fontaine as Lina--and making them a couple. She is a studious, introspective, conservative woman and he is an impetuous, impertinent, immature extrovert. Their joining is the recipe for some kind of discord.Lina is the viewer's avatar in the film. Notice how the story follows her point of view. Much of the circumstantial evidence that points to Johnnie's guilt is viewed through her eyes, conveyed through her external clues to inner turmoil in a great performance by Fontaine. Note the way Hitchcock lights the interior of their home--usually with a multitude of shadows. He frames Lina with the shadows of the large window, a cage, making her a prisoner of her own love for Johnnie.The dream of happiness that was the center of their honeymoon becomes a nightmarish roller coaster ride of emotions as soon as they return home. Lina is an amateur regarding relationships, so it takes her a while to understand her feelings and to learn what limits her fidelity has.As the evidence--circumstantial and otherwise--piles up (perhaps a little too neatly), Hitchcock asks the viewer to understand Lina's confusion and her ambivalence. But it is human nature to want to exhaust every last shred of doubt in defending one's love, so we take the journey with Lina until finally there is only certainty. The script is very tight and cleverly written and the score is lush, accenting the emotional highs.Hitchcock wanted a darker ending, but still managed to create an ending that delights in having taken the audience for a ride. He would get his darker ending two years later, with "Shadow of a Doubt". In both cases, note how he uses a waltz theme for the one under suspicion.I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It is filled with prototypical Hitchcockian elements (e.g. his focus on her hair). Joan Fontaine's performance alone--so nuanced, especially when compared to some other portrayals of women spiraling toward a breakdown--makes the film worth watching.