VividSimon Simply Perfect

Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

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

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

davidcarniglia I can't add much to the many excellent reviews of this Hitchcock classic. But I do want to dwell on a crucial aspect of the plot, and comment on a few bits of Strangers on a Train.Why doesn't Guy go to the police immediately after he learns that Miriam has been killed? Sure, the 'trading murders' scheme sounds nuts; but since he knows he'll be under suspicion anyway, he has nothing to lose. Bruno, with his fixation on Guy and their alleged 'deal,' would show his hand, drawing the cops' attention away from Guy.Imagine the guests at the senator's party recounting to the cops Bruno's absurd ranting about a new source of energy, or, even more damning, his choke hold on the elderly lady. Of course, without Bruno free to slither around, then there would be little mystery, and no movie.After just watching it again, it's fascinating how Hitchcock uses the glasses motif to tie in the murder victim with Ann's sister. Bruno focuses on Barbara as a haunting surrogate for Miriam. In a sense, she avenges the victim by helping to entrap Bruno. Her glasses point to the noir emphasis on reflections as a literal mirror held to the criminal side of life.Maybe I can answer the question I began with: Guy won't give up Bruno, because they have a bizarre bond. They're reflections of each other, Bruno the noir Hyde to Guy's everyday Jekyll. Tennis couldn't be a more fitting metaphor for the sunny side of life portrayed by Guy, as opposed to Bruno's mostly nocturnal or interior habitats. Maybe Hitchcock's most noir movie, and one of the better noirs made.

mlink-36-9815 it only a rumor but i heard the censor refused to pass STRANGERS ON A TRAIN unless Hitchcock made changes. The scenes in the train were deemed too "queer"... So that is why there are two versions. The British version is the original cut pre-censor verdict.It is Another rumor but Hitchcock may have stolen his amusement park murder idea from a rare British film "WANTED FOR MURDER" 1946 aka A Voice In The Night. In this one a killer (eric Portman) is driven by inheriting his compulsion from his father who has a wax museum statue.Bruno is Guy's doppelganger. They are both the same person. That is obvious & mentioned several times. Guy cannot control Bruno who pops out at the darnedest times.

ags123 Hitchcock is clearly in his element adapting Patricia Highsmith's quirky novel to the screen. Here again we have a wrongly accused man out to expose the true culprit while attempting to elude the police. However, this time, the hero is not entirely innocent. And the villain is irresistibly charming. Add to that a subtle homosexual undertone making for an engaging and suspenseful film. Robert Walker steals the show in what was a complete reversal of his wholesome image. Also outstanding is Patricia Hitchcock as the wise and witty voice of reason, the most extensive of her roles in three of her father's films. Ruth Roman, culled from Warner's contract players and heavily promoted at the time, is a rather weak link, not the typical Hitchcock blonde, and far too uptight and affected to be convincing as unassuming Farley Granger's love interest. Minor characters - Leo G. Carroll, Marion Lorne, Laura Elliott - excel at adding depth to the story. Of note is the costume design: Bruno's rakish dressing gown has appeared in various Warner Bros. productions, seen on Monty Woolley in 1942's "The Man Who Came To Dinner" and on Milton Berle in 1949's "Always Leave Them Laughing."

KissEnglishPasto Certainly, not a great many films made two thirds of a century ago hold up under scrutiny in 2017. If my memory serves me, I first saw this 1951 Hitchcock "Classic" on TV at age 12 or 13. Shame on me for making that fatal mistake of setting my expectation level for a second viewing at "10". My best recommendation for those of you who just might decide to see it for the first time: It is an engrossing character study, (Robert Walker as Bruno Anthony) but falls somewhat short on many other levels, especially when compared to a number of other Hitchcock works. Walker's portrayal of an obsessive sociopathic socialite, although intense, gripping and intriguing, strikes me as very demanding in relation to the 2017 viewer's Suspension of Disbelief. An interesting footnote…This was Walker's penultimate film. He died just before completing his next and last project, "My Son John". Evidently, like the character he portrayed, Walker also was plagued by a number of his own demons. If you crave more details, you can get them here on IMDb. The very best thing STRANGERS has going for it, aside from the aforementioned stellar performance, is the intriguing central premise of the film itself. From the onset, Hitchcock seems keenly aware of this, perhaps overplaying his hand on this point as the film approaches its climax. Without crossing the Spoiler Details threshold, perhaps my biggest criticism of the movie is its final minutes. Visually, a crucial scene just does not hold up to our present day CGI sensibilities. To use an appropriate colloquialism, one scene is really "hokey"! All of which, again, taxed my Suspension of Disbelief to the breaking point. So, don't set your expectations extremely high and the film will be well worth your while.9*....ENJOY!/DISFRUTELA! Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome!.....