Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Syl Sir Alfred Hitchcock's early works in his screen adaptation of a play entitled "Skin Game." It is easy to see why this film is forgettable. First, there are too many characters in the film. The script is uneven at times. They have great cast members like Jill Esmond and Edmund Gwynn there. Many of the cast members here are known for their theatrical backgrounds. The film is about aristocracy, business, and the changing guard in England. The film's complicated plot involves blackmail and bait and switch scheme. This film never really develops in the first viewing. I give kudos for Hitchcock about a woman who uses her female prowess to help unhappy husbands get a divorce. In the thirties, women's sexual behavior remained taboo in films.

MartinHafer This old Alfred Hitchcock film is extremely tough to watch, as the film (even by 1931 standards) has very poor sound and the print is pretty bad as well. Being a public domain film, it's been pretty much neglected. On top of this, the film's style is very old fashioned compared to products made by Hollywood at this same time. The simple fact is that the United States was leading the world in film technology at this point and other countries' films lacked clear and effective sound. Interestingly enough, the UK was pretty advanced in this area, as in some counties (such as Japan and China), silent films would be made well through the 1930s. However, despite this and despite the film starting very slowly, it's well worth seeing--but you need to be patient.The film begins with two rich families--the Hillcrists and the Hornblowers. The Hillcrists are "old money"--a bit snobbish and clinging to their ideals of class. The Hornblowers are "new money"--newly rich, not particularly sophisticated and angry that the old money treat them like riff-raff. In fact, the head of the family (Edmund Gwen) seems determined to teach the Hillcrists a lesson by buying up the land around their estate and turning it into factories and cheap housing! The Hillcrists, in a desperate move, send out investigators to see if there is any dirt they can use to stop the Hornblowers. Unfortunately, the Hillcrests ARE able to find some lovely dirt but despite this, the film ends in unexpected tragedy.The film, despite having terrible cinematography (the zooming shots are just horrible, heads cut off in many scenes and a jerky camera) and dull pacing, the film has such a strong story that it's well worth seeing. This is especially true since the film ends so well--leaving the viewer amazed at how well all the story elements work together. Sadly, this film could really use a remake--it's just too well written to be forgotten.

federovsky For Hitchcock scholars only. Image quality is murky and the extremely poor sound makes it quite hard to hear what is being said. The acting is rather turgid. Characters don't quite seem able to attain anything recognisably human - perhaps because of the theatrical origins of the piece, but mainly because Hitchcock hadn't yet unpicked the psychological key to making films.The stand-out thing is the auction scene where whip-pans flash around the room and there is a nice twist at the end of the bidding - ah, so it is Hitchcock. The rest of the film - a battle of wills between some landed gentry and an encroaching industrialist - is static and dreary and the only point of interest is the array of fascinating English accents now all but extinct.

Jonathon Dabell Although widely regarded as one of the best directors ever to make movies, Alfred Hitchcock made occasional duds along the way. Shortly after his first talkie, Blackmail (1929), Hitchcock went through a major lull and what he described as his "lowest ebb". For a four year period he made films that didn't interest him and didn't allow his creative juices to flow - films like Juno And The Paycock, Rich And Strange and Waltzes From Vienna. Also made around that time was The Skin Game, a talky and generally unexceptional adaptation of a John Galsworthy play made as part of Hitch's contractual obligation to British International Pictures. In later years Hitchcock always maintained that he never really wanted to make this film, that it was forced upon him by the studio, and if this is true then it goes a long way towards explaining why it is such a static, unenthusiastic offering.Aristocratic landowner Mr Hillcrist (C.V. France) sells a row of cottages to a self-made businessman, Mr Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn). However, Hornblower deliberately goes back on an agreement by ejecting an elderly couple, the Jackmans, from their cottage even though he made a verbal promise not to do so. Hillcrist is furious when he hears of this, but his fury only increases when he learns that Hornblower wants the cottages to house a group of workers. Seems Hornblower has plans to buy a picturesque piece of countryside right outside Hillcrist's grand mansion and build factories upon it. After a dramatic auction for the said land, Hornblower emerges with the winning bid. However Mrs Hillcrist (Helen Haye) refuses to accept defeat lying down and tirelessly seeks a way of gaining the upper hand in the battle of wills between the two families. She gets just the handle she is looking for when it emerges that Hornblower's daughter-in-law, Chloe (Phyliss Konstam), has a scandalous past. Before marrying into the Hornblower clan, hard-up Chloe was allegedly paid to play the lover with several married men seeking divorces. She has never told anyone about this unsavoury secret, including her husband Charles Hornblower (John Longden). When Mrs Hillcrist threatens to publicise the truth unless Hornblower surrenders ownership of the land he has bought, she sets in motion a chain of events that lead to scandal, broken relationships and eventually suicide.Even in a film as uncharacteristic and unremarkable as this, Hitchcock still manages a few innovative touches. The auction sequence, by far the best and most dramatically absorbing part of the film, is notable for its use of clever zip pans. The camera zips frantically from face to face as the bidding intensifies, adding drama and urgency to the scene. There are several fine performances too, particularly Gwenn as the arrogant Hornblower and Haye as the the merciless Mrs Hillcrist. These two commanding performances lift the film considerably and make bearable some of the long-winded, dialogue-heavy scenes. The Skin Game's plot, however, contains very few of the themes and features that typify most of Hitchcock's work - as one reviewer noted "the film is more Galsworthy than Hitchcock and seems very stagy". For this reason the film is not an especially worthwhile one and should perhaps only be sought out by Hitchcock completists or fans of the original play. Everyone else is likely to find The Skin Game somewhat disappointing.