6th HOF-Foreign Correspondent

Nominated By: Rauldc



This was a hard choice for me this go around, though it usually always is. I decided to go with one of Alfred Hitchcocks less respected films, and one that I believe may be under seen around the forums. It's a spy thriller that was seemingly a pretty risky movie for its time. It may be one of Hitchcocks best looking films. He does a fantastic job behind the camera. It's well acted and I think it has a really outstanding plot. It is a film that surely made me think about it after I watched it for the first time and I am interested in seeing what everyone else thinks about it. Hopefully everyone else is able to see the beauty behind it and we can have another Hitchcock great here. It is currently available on Hulu for those that have access there and is available in other places as well.

__________________
Letterboxd

It's been so long since I've seen this that I barely remember it. I'm looking forward to watching it again as I pretty much love everything Hitchcock.

Funnily enough I'm not a massive Hitch fan, but I'm open to be persuaded!

I've enjoyed most of the Hitchcock films I've seen (Hated The Birds and thought Family Plot was just okay) so I have some confidence that I'll like this one.

__________________

I think you will like it, Miss Vicky. Though I could be wrong.

Just finished this.

While not a bad film, I really feel that this is one of Hitch’s weaker efforts. I know that Jones was supposed to be naïve, but he seemed naïve to the point of being stupid. Yeah he’s new to the goings on in Europe, but he’s got experience in dealing with dangerous people yet blindly trusts everybody he meets. I don’t buy it. I also don’t buy the romance between the two leads. They meet twice and suddenly they want to get married? Hokey BS. Also contrived and all too convenient: the awning that broke ffolliott’s fall and allowed him to all too easily and gently land on his feet.
I realize the film is 75 years old but to me that doesn’t really excuse these flaws and I really had trouble connecting with the film. I will give it some points for the line “I’m just as big a jackass as I ever was” though. Seems a perfect description for the lead character.

Disappointed you didn't like it, but thanks for watching. I guess it could be seen as a hit or miss. But a 3/5 for you isn't bad.

I was looking forward to Foreign Correspondent more than any of the other nominations because it's one of the few Hitchcock movies that I hadn't already seen. It was good, but not as good as I'd hoped.

I liked the whole story about the kidnapping and the imposter, but overall. the movie felt a bit dated. And the whole idea of some kind of "secret clause" in a peace treaty made no sense to me. If the clause is a secret, then how does it benefit anyone? We never even find out what's in this "secret clause".

I also wasn't too impressed with Joel McCrea and Laraine Day as a couple. There was no chemistry between them at all.

Not the best of Hitchcock, not his worst either...one might be able to enjoy if is willing to ignore bits of loopholes here and there...not much of a thriller though... 5.5 out of 10 for me.

__________________
To Suggest Is To Create, To Name Is To Destroy

I wasn't mad on this one either, sorry rauldc. It's not bad, but it's nowhere near in the same league as some of Hitchcock's other films. From the same era I much prefer The Lady Vanishes, Rebecca and Shadow of a Doubt.

The plot was a bit shaky. I liked the idea of a double but the secret clause made no sense. The romance was completely implausible. "I'm in love with you, and I want to marry you." "I'm in love with you, and I want to marry you." They've only met twice! They've barely spoken!

I didn't much care for the ignorant-and-proud-of-it main character blundering in everywhere, a bit of an American stereotype, really.

It would have been a much more interesting film if he had been thrown off the tower, instead of conveniently stepping aside, but I suppose killing off the main character would have been a bit much for this film, Hitchcock saved that for Psycho.

I did like ffolliot though, and there were a couple of amusing lines, like when Jones is told 'we all speak English' and he says 'that's more than I can say for my country'. It was certainly watchable enough, I didn't dislike it.

Does anyone else think this was made as a propaganda film? I haven't read up much on it but it certainly seemed that way to me from Jones's speech at the end. Considering this was released in 1940 when the U.S. had yet to join the war. And if it is a propaganda film does that necessarily lessen its value as a film in any way?

Ah well. I tried something different with this one. At least it won't take last (guaranteed K-On or people are just messing with themselves)

I thought it was but it wasn't overbearing until the very end.

Whether it lessens its value or not is an interesting question. I generally think it doesn't on the surface but I tend to find the propaganda elements of movies are pretty heavey handed and this does affect my enjoyment.

For this particular movie it did affect my rating marginally but I hadn't overly enjoyed it up until that point anyway. I've found that the British were OK at doing propaganda movies without being too annoying - things like The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp.

I was sure that I had seen this before, but maybe not because I didn't remember any of it. I think everyone else's criticisms of the film are valid, but I wasn't bothered by any of it. I tend to be more forgiving of older films because I think some of this different type of stuff was the norm 75 years ago. I just watched this movie to enjoy it, without worrying about minor flaws. This was a best picture nominee in 1940 after all. I enjoyed the story, I liked the cast, and I loved the ending. I didn't think there was anything spectacular about it, but I thought it was very good entertainment. As a bit of a forgotten film from one of our great directors, I think this was an excellent nomination.

I found the movie pretty boring, in fact, the least interesting film up so far for me in this Hall of Fame. Overall, though, I am finding all the movies here very interesting so it's though competition.

My rating was .

In my best Cobpyth impression, but why was it boring?

I thought this was just a average and typical run-of-the-mill Hitchcock thriller. It isn't amazingly entertaining or cinematically serious, it has it's few good moments though. I liked the sets, the development of the leading man and the occasional comic relief. Also I do think Hitchcock kind of works better with black and white.

To sum it up, it wasn't a waste of time, like every Hitchcock film is with each one having a unique different take on the spy/thriller drama. This one was a lot weaker than the others, but then you need to have some failures to build a masterpiece.

I don't consider Foreign Correspondent a "failure", but I agree that it's not up to Hitchcock's normal high quality standard.

Finished watching this one!

Of course this one is not as suspenseful or technically brilliant as some of Hitchcock's most revered movies, but somehow really I enjoyed it! The characters are brilliantly built, the dialogue is great and the last couple of scenes are incredible! The fact that I'm a sucker for WW II movies probably helps a lot, but I felt really entertained during the whole 2 hours!

I'm glad you enjoyed it Neiba! I think it is a good precursor to the making of the legend that is Alfred Hitchcock. Its what I consider to be his first real great movie (of what I've seen).

Well it's just not my type of movie. None of his movies are but when I watching a masterpiece of a genre I don't care about I might like it (ex. Godfather). In this case I guess it wasn't an exceptional Hitchcock movie.