Spellbound (1945)

I just saw this on the big screen - Hitchcock, Bergman, Peck, and Dali, I was expecting a treat. Despite some great elements this film does not deliver much in the way of suspense. There are definitely parts of the film where Hitchcock's talents shine but there were other parts where it was almost as if they were directed by another director. I'm guessing this was the consequence of his new American producer's influence (Selznick). If you're a Hitchcock fan then check this one out, otherwise I wouldn't make it a priority.

This has got to be one of Hitchcock's best films ever. And I would say top film from the 40's. The movie slowly develops into a very suspencful ride that really did catch me on the edge of my seat. The charectors are very well developed and you really get attached to them. The concept of this movie involves a woman psychiatrist who falls in love with a man who at first claims to be a psychiatrist as well. Soon we find out that he is an imposter, but he does not remember why. As he leaves for new york, the woman go's after him. The movie from there takes on an adventure. As the woman falls deeper in love with the man, but does not know if he is truly insane, possibly a murderer, or simply experienced a bad case of amnesia. As the mystery unravels, the movie will keep you guessing. Only Hitchcock can blend, Suspense, Romance, Psychological thriller, and Adventure all into one perfect harmony. Truly a Masterpiece.

In his excellent study of Ingrid Bergman for the Pyramid Illustrated History of the Movies series, Curtis F. Brown tells exactly what is wrong with Spellbound: "In addition to Gregory Peck's callow appearance and wooden acting, the film has other serious faults. One is its pretentious and simplistic 'dream sequence. Another is the dialogue." Most of the picture is thrown Bergman's way and she is such an accomplished actress and lights up the screen with such a charismatic inner radiance that it doesn't really matter what she says. The logical, pragmatic side of our brain is only half-listening. And as for Peck, for once his very shallowness and lack of presence is ideally suited for the part he is called upon to play. The support cast, led by Leo G. Carroll, is also sufficiently professional to either smooth out or neatly contrast the gauche acting of the amateurish Peck. Though why Michael Chekhov was honored with a Supporting Actor nomination is beyond me. Competent enough he certainly is, but he is among the least interesting of the supporting line-up. Other names that spring to mind well before Chekhov' are John Emery, Rhonda Fleming, Norman Lloyd and Wallace Ford. The Criterion DVD can be thoroughly recommended.

Well, I'll tell you one thing for certain - Alfred Hitchcock's "Spellbound" definitely didn't hold me spellbound. Far from it. In fact, a number of times throughout the story I actually burst out laughing at how corny, clichéd, and, yes, cockeyed this particular romance was.I guess back in 1945 (with WW2 ending, and everything) they must have figured that no matter how implausible and dumb "Spellbound's" story really was, it couldn't fail to be a success since it starred 2 of Hollywood's most beautiful and adored actors-of-the-day, Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck (both in their prime at 30).And, of course, Spellbound was, indeed, a huge hit when it was first released.For me, though - About the only thing worth watching Spellbound for was its brief dream sequence which was conceived by surrealist artist, Salvador Dali.Unfortunately, this particular episode in the film was cut from its original 20 minutes to only 2 minutes by the film's producer, David Selznick, who, apparently, clashed with Hitchcock often over the direction of this production.