John Robie is a retired cat burglar living on the French Riviera. When there are a string of diamond robberies in the area with his modus operandi, he's the number one suspect and must go into hiding to try and force the real culprit out into the open.
A confession - I really dislike this movie. It has some interesting scenes, the Cote D'Azur locales are very glamorous and picturesque, and there are some glimpses of Hitchcock's brilliance, but for the most part I just find it dull. For the master of suspense, it's almost completely lacking in suspense. The plot is weak - the kick-starter is when John runs from the police, but why bother - he's innocent and they have no evidence. If it's really a love story instead it's not a very good one - he's selfish and cynical and Francie is spoiled and immature. And the identity of Le Chat is pretty obvious; it has to be one of John's old gang and only two of them are developed as characters, one of whom is a (badly dubbed) old man who could hardly climb anything. Compare this with one of Hitch's other double-hunt movies, say The 39 Steps, where the innocent man premise is handled with much more plausibility, the romance is charming and quirky, and the twist at the end is craftily disguised and extremely satisfying. Most surprisingly for Hitchcock, humour and thrills are minimal - the scene where Foussard dies is a flub; a bunch of static shots and then a confusing, badly lit struggle of someone we've hardly met falling off a cliff we didn't know was there. And while Landis and Williams raise the occasional smile there are almost no jokes. I suppose the suave romantic banter is supposed to replace them but it's not very funny if, like me, you don't care for the characters. The only chuckle involves an errant chicken, but since it's in a scene where Francie drives her sports car recklessly round the twisting Monaco hills it's quite upsetting to watch (Kelly crashed her car and died in almost the exact same spot in 1982). Are we supposed to admire John, a self-confessed unapologetic burglar who conspicuously enjoys the high life he's gotten from his crimes ? Don't get me wrong, I like flawed heroes, but I find nothing heroic about a snooty criminal who only cares about himself and his own liberty. I also always get a bit creeped out by love stories where the woman is half the age of the man. The movie also has two big liabilities for me - the photography and the music. Cameraman Robert Burks won an Oscar for this film, which astonishes me, since of the twelve movies he made with Hitchcock, I'd say this one has the blandest photography - it's flat and static. There is an enormous difference between lavish, glamorous colour photography and good movie photography. Just about anyone can do the former, provided you have the resources, and that's all this movie is - a series of exclusive resorts, grand buildings and posh people in expensive suits and frocks (most of which have dated badly). In a Moving Picture the emphasis should always be on the adjective - Burks was an outstanding talent, but please see his stunning photography in Rear Window, Vertigo or The Birds, where the camera actually tells the story and adds immensely to the atmosphere, as opposed to just sitting back and recording a pile of talky scenes. There are occasional flashes - like the moment where Kelly's head is all in shadow in the big seduction scene - which feel Hitchcockian and original, but these are few and far between. Similarly, the score by Lyn Murray (a man) is staid and forgettable - it could be slapped on any movie of the period and fit reasonably well. For his next film, the brilliant and hilarious The Trouble With Harry, Hitch employed Bernard Herrmann as composer, and right from the very first second the music is sublime, original, funny, scary and complements the images perfectly, whilst simultaneously having a character all of its own. Okay, so I don't like To Catch A Thief, and perhaps some of my criticisms are unfair. I'm sure most people would say don't be such a killjoy, it's so chic and elegant, such a treasure of fifties haute couture, a timepiece of Monte Carlo history, a classic of romantic badinage from an age when Movie Stars really were royalty. It may be all of those things, but I don't watch movies to marvel at expensive things I can't have - I watch them to see exciting stories and meet interesting characters I can identify and empathise with. Hitchcock's movies usually do that for me and then some, but this one is cold and lifeless, like the sparkly diamonds the characters all revolve around. A bore.
A confession - I really dislike this movie. It has some interesting scenes, the Cote D'Azur locales are very glamorous and picturesque, and there are some glimpses of Hitchcock's brilliance, but for the most part I just find it dull. For the master of suspense, it's almost completely lacking in suspense. The plot is weak - the kick-starter is when John runs from the police, but why bother - he's innocent and they have no evidence. If it's really a love story instead it's not a very good one - he's selfish and cynical and Francie is spoiled and immature. And the identity of Le Chat is pretty obvious; it has to be one of John's old gang and only two of them are developed as characters, one of whom is a (badly dubbed) old man who could hardly climb anything. Compare this with one of Hitch's other double-hunt movies, say The 39 Steps, where the innocent man premise is handled with much more plausibility, the romance is charming and quirky, and the twist at the end is craftily disguised and extremely satisfying. Most surprisingly for Hitchcock, humour and thrills are minimal - the scene where Foussard dies is a flub; a bunch of static shots and then a confusing, badly lit struggle of someone we've hardly met falling off a cliff we didn't know was there. And while Landis and Williams raise the occasional smile there are almost no jokes. I suppose the suave romantic banter is supposed to replace them but it's not very funny if, like me, you don't care for the characters. The only chuckle involves an errant chicken, but since it's in a scene where Francie drives her sports car recklessly round the twisting Monaco hills it's quite upsetting to watch (Kelly crashed her car and died in almost the exact same spot in 1982). Are we supposed to admire John, a self-confessed unapologetic burglar who conspicuously enjoys the high life he's gotten from his crimes ? Don't get me wrong, I like flawed heroes, but I find nothing heroic about a snooty criminal who only cares about himself and his own liberty. I also always get a bit creeped out by love stories where the woman is half the age of the man. The movie also has two big liabilities for me - the photography and the music. Cameraman Robert Burks won an Oscar for this film, which astonishes me, since of the twelve movies he made with Hitchcock, I'd say this one has the blandest photography - it's flat and static. There is an enormous difference between lavish, glamorous colour photography and good movie photography. Just about anyone can do the former, provided you have the resources, and that's all this movie is - a series of exclusive resorts, grand buildings and posh people in expensive suits and frocks (most of which have dated badly). In a Moving Picture the emphasis should always be on the adjective - Burks was an outstanding talent, but please see his stunning photography in Rear Window, Vertigo or The Birds, where the camera actually tells the story and adds immensely to the atmosphere, as opposed to just sitting back and recording a pile of talky scenes. There are occasional flashes - like the moment where Kelly's head is all in shadow in the big seduction scene - which feel Hitchcockian and original, but these are few and far between. Similarly, the score by Lyn Murray (a man) is staid and forgettable - it could be slapped on any movie of the period and fit reasonably well. For his next film, the brilliant and hilarious The Trouble With Harry, Hitch employed Bernard Herrmann as composer, and right from the very first second the music is sublime, original, funny, scary and complements the images perfectly, whilst simultaneously having a character all of its own. Okay, so I don't like To Catch A Thief, and perhaps some of my criticisms are unfair. I'm sure most people would say don't be such a killjoy, it's so chic and elegant, such a treasure of fifties haute couture, a timepiece of Monte Carlo history, a classic of romantic badinage from an age when Movie Stars really were royalty. It may be all of those things, but I don't watch movies to marvel at expensive things I can't have - I watch them to see exciting stories and meet interesting characters I can identify and empathise with. Hitchcock's movies usually do that for me and then some, but this one is cold and lifeless, like the sparkly diamonds the characters all revolve around. A bore.