Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Matt Greene Dull and forgettable are not normally words associated with Hitchcock, but here we are. The corrupt-elite storyline is much too blatant, and even the visuals are surprisingly unappealing. O'Hara and Laughton are engaging, but the web of complex characters they are woven into provide little lasting impact on the audience or Hitchcock's incredible career.

emdragon I always enjoy the Hitchcock movies. Always. This one was no exception. Adapted from a famous novel by Daphne Du Maurier, Jamaica Inn is a period piece, one of a select few directed by Sir Alfred. The action also seems from a former time. It is overly romantic and slightly melodramatic. But that suits the picture, perfectly. The cast is excellent all around. Charles Laughton's performance is exemplary. He nuances his role as Sir Humphrey (the unknown behind the scenes leader of the wrecking gang) with sardonic wit and a slightly mad glee. It is said there were a few clashes between he and the director. It does not surprise me. They were similar characters, demanding as much space as space would allow, probably. I enjoyed Maureen O'Hara's performance. She avoided the usual naivete exhibited by many female leads for pictures of this ilk, though she never did more than she needed to. Robert Newton & the rest of the cast were similarly excellent, including deft performances by the older couple at the Inn (Leslie Banks and Marie Ney). Not much cinematography, but the storm scenes and final climactic ship scene at the end were well carried off. Sir Humphrey's palace was well and lavishly depicted as well. All in all, despite a few minor flaws here and there, a very enjoyable watch!

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.

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki Good effects of the wind and rain during the shipwrecks, and good set designs all work in this film's favour, and give it an appropriately dark and ominous, oppressive feel; bleak, hopeless, but that clashes with the costume drama/ stage play feeling that too much of the film has.I think this film would have been a lot better had it been set in the then-present day, rather than set in the 1800s. The plot, thieves orchestrating shipwrecks in order to loot and plunder the remains, was fairly interesting, but the over emphasis on the time, rather than the plot itself, was too distracting. Film feels more like a period piece, or costume drama, than anything.Far from being Hitchcock's worst, as several reviewers claim, but still a bit of a chore to watch.