Gaslight (1944)

Don't you hate it when you can't remember where you placed that long, scary butcher knife?

Intro.

I don't know how widespread it is, but lately I feel like myself and everyone I know is suffering from some sort of stress-overload at work.  There's just too much to do and not enough time or resources.  Don't get me wrong, I love my job and wouldn't trade it for anything, but lately I feel like I just can't keep track of things.  It all culminated yesterday when I noticed a stain on my jacket and couldn't remember when I had spilled something on it.  My co-worker looked at it and said she didn't see anything.  I know I wasn't imagining it, but I started doubting myself.  Suddenly I felt just like Ingrid Bergman's character in Gaslight, which I had just watched.  It's funny how films can suddenly influence your thoughts and perceptions in day-to-day life.

Overview
October 14, 1875 - London is being terrorized by the Thornton Square Strangler and his latest victim is wealthy singer, Alice Alquist.  Her niece Paula (Ingrid Bergman) finds her aunt's body.  Still trying to recover and mourn on her own, Paula travels to Italy and begins to study music with Alice's former instructor.  She instead is more interested in his piano accompanist, a charming man named Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer).  They run away together and marry, and as he has always dreamed of living in London, Paula bravely offers her aunt's (now her) house.  Despite her obviously frail emotional health, Gregory tries to make the best of the home.  But it's clear that Paula isn't well and only proceeds to get worse.  She grows forgetful, loses things and starts to hear things in the boarded up attic.  Gregory continues to tell people she is sick, even when she feels well, forcing her into isolation.  He hires a pretty new maid and feeds into Paula's suspicions.  Just when Paula starts to believe that she really has gone mad, a man she had seen in the park re-enters her life.  He had mistaken her for her aunt, of whom he had been a great admirer.  His name is Brian Cameron (Joseph Cotton) and he comes to visit while Gregory is out.  He soon helps Paula uncover the truth - not only about her sanity, but about Gregory's true identity and the secrets hidden within her aunt's attic.

Highlights

Ingrid Bergman won an Oscar for her performance as Paula.  It was richly deserved.  Her slow transformation from sane and happy to tragically depressed and possibly mad is fascinating to watch.  How on earth could she think her husband would trick her or purposefully hide her things?  I thought it was rather interesting that they were married so soon after the murder, and I wonder if part of that was his idea so that her mind would still be preoccupied with mourning.  I think Paula also wanted to be married in an effort to get past her sadness - she was using Gregory as a crutch and he took full advantage.  Her final showdown with Gregory though is priceless - she finally has him all figured out and only pretends to be mad to spite him.  Just when he needs her to be sane and help him escape, she suddenly can't remember how to untie the ropes that bind him or where she's placed that long butcher knife.  It's wonderful!

I also recommend watching the first major role of Angela Lansbury.  She is delightful as the flirtatious maid and a perfect fit for this role.  Also worth watching is the busybody neighbor, Bessie Thwaites (Dame May Whitty).  She's the comic relief for the picture and does a fine job of helping the audience understand the murder from an outsider's viewpoint.  I should also mention that Joseph Cotton is great.  Think about it, how would Paula have figured it all out on her own if she had convinced herself she was mad and could never get a moment to herself?  She almost had it when she noticed the gaslights dimming without explanation.  I guess we'll never know if Paula would have recovered all the missing articles herself.

What I took away from this film was how simple it is to start doubting yourself.  Being in a fragile emotional state, Paula was in no position to get married, let alone to move back into the house, so from the outset we know she's going to have problems.  Add in Gregory's strange behavior and his pains to make her "extra" forgetful and it's a whole new level of abuse.  In her defense, who can she trust but this man she adores?  I wonder if at some level she feels like she's being punished because she wasn't able to save her aunt (she had been upstairs during the murder, and came down too late).  It leaves us each with the question of what it would take to drive us mad.  It isn't always some big, traumatic event, but sometimes a series of carefully planned incidents.  I don't know what I would have done in Paula's shoes.  And I'm not sure I want to know. 

Review and Recommendation
Overall, Gaslight is a story of an intense breakdown, marvelously portrayed by Ingrid Bergman.  A psychological mind-bender and good old murder mystery make this an excellent addition to the thriller films I've reviewed this month.  Definitely a film worth watching!  

Dial M for Murder (1954)

And I thought telemarketers were bad.

Intro.

As I've mentioned before, I love Hitchcock.  The more I watch his films, the greater I can appreciate his great camerawork and attention to detail.  So when I noticed Dial M for Murder in the television listings recently, I had to catch up on one of his films I hadn't seen before.  And this time I actually saw Hitchcock hidden in the film!

Overview 

At the beginning, Tony (Ray Milland) and Margot (Grace Kelly) appear to be a perfectly happy married couple.  That is, until we realize that Margot's returning friend Mark (Robert Cummings) was more than just her friend.  Margot tells Mark that although their affair ended a year ago, Tony's been acting strangely.  What's worse is that the only letter she kept from Mark was stolen awhile ago, and although she paid the mysterious blackmailer, she never received the letter back.  She and Mark go out for the evening, as Tony says he has to stay home and get work done.  His "work" consists of meeting an old college acquaintance, Captain Lesgate (Anthony Dawson).  More like blackmailing, that is.  Mark's been plotting the perfect murder ever since he discovered Margot's affair.  It wasn't so much jealousy as it was a way to get her money.  He's spent weeks tailing Lesgate, discovering many petty crimes and name changes along the way.  What's more he offers $1,000 - money which Lesgate desperately needs.  He describes the murder, complete with alibis - Tony and Mark will be away at a stag dinner, Tony will call at 11:00 pm, Margot will come out of her room and answer the phone at the desk.  Lesgate will have retrieved a key from outside and let himself in to hide behind the curtains.  After she answers the phone, Lesgate simply strangles her, then the murder is over and no one needs to know.  The phone call is the key.  Well, nothing seems to go exactly to plan - Margot wants to go out instead of staying home, then Tony's watch stops and finally while she's being strangled, Margot fights back and -whoops!- kills Lesgate!!  Tony has to think fast as to how to frame Margot and plants the missing love letter on Lesgate.  Although Margot is arrested and tried for murder, the police chief Hubbard (John Williams) and Mark (who conveniently is an American mystery writer) aren't convinced.  Can they prove Margot's innocence before she is executed?      

Highlights

I'm often told that I'm too detail oriented.  I'm not so sure this is always a bad thing.  Hitchcock's stories come alive because of the attention to detail.  Both in the plot itself and the characters, he has a keen eye for what matters and every line, every motion adds something vital to the story.  It's almost like watching a Hemingway story come to life - there is no room for extraneous dialogue or scene setting.  Instantly we become engaged and engrossed in this film.  What's more, Tony goes to the trouble of explaining exactly what's going to happen and how.  Then later in the film, Mark figures out what really happened and suggests that Tony "make up" the same story in order to get Margot a stay of execution.  It all comes down to the smallest of clues (which I won't reveal, don't worry).

The acting is also very well done in this film.  Grace Kelly is always a delight and she is wonderful in this role.  I was so happy when she killed Lesgate - a true victory for women!  It reminded me a lot of her stand in High Noon but I don't think I should really give that ending away either.  Anyway, she is wonderful.  I also really enjoyed watching Ray Milland as the evil mastermind - I don't recall if I've seen many of his films before, but if he's in any more thrillers, I'm going to add them to my list!  Cummings and Williams both made strong supporting actors, and I loved how the Inspector refused to give up even after the trial.  He steals the show in the final scene.

Finally, a brief mention of the amazing cinematography.  As always, the camera angles and frames comment on the film itself.  I particularly enjoyed the lower camera position as it looked up at Tony while he discussed his twisted plan with Lesgate.  The near-strangulation is also very well done with all the suspense and horror we expect from Hitchcock.  I also like how he snuck into the photo of Tony's college reunion, since most shots in this film are only inside the apartment, leaving little time for him to make his famous appearance elsewhere.  I always get excited when I find him - there are still quite a few films where I haven't seen him.  All the more reason to keep watching!

Review and Recommendation

One of Hitchcock's best films, Dial M for Murder has a tight, fascinating plot, and a story with more twists and turns than an intestine.  Okay, bad analogy, but you get the idea.  I recommend it as the standout type of murder mystery where we're let in on the who/what/why beforehand and the fun comes in following the capture of the criminal.  Great for Hitchcock fans, thriller fans, Grace Kelly fans and really, anyone with any movie taste. 

Strangers on a Train (1951)

I had no idea that merry-go-rounds could be so terrifying!

Intro.

I am taking a slight break from the movie monster phase to talk about Hitchcock - which still seems appropriate for October and Halloween.  Do you ever find yourself watching those films that everyone seems to know, but not too many people today have actually seen?  I'm definitely guilty of a lot of those films - I've never seen the full length of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Citizen Kane but I know what happens in those films and why they are so key to film history.  (I know, I'm a terrible fangirl for not having seen those!)  I think Strangers on a Train is one of those films, which is why I'm glad it was recently featured on the TCM series, The Essentials. 

Overview

The premise of Strangers on a Train is exactly what it sounds like - two strangers meet on a train.  Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is a famous tennis player, not quite pro yet, who is approached by a very talkative fan, Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker).  Bruno seems to know a lot about Guy's life, including the fact that he wants to divorce his wife and marry his girlfriend, Anne Morton (Ruth Roman).  Bruno admits that he has family troubles of his own, namely his stern, disapproving but very wealthy father.  Pretty soon Bruno tells Guy his idea of a perfect murder - two strangers with no connections between them "swap murders".  "Everybody has someone they'd like to get rid of," Bruno says with all the charm of a snake.  For whatever reason, Guy disapproves but not too harshly, possibly to not upset this stranger who may decide to kill him instead.  Anyway, Guy gets off the train and confronts his pregnant wife.  She's decided not to go through with the divorce and to tell everyone that the baby she's carrying is Guy's (even though it isn't).  He's so furious, he calls Anne and says he's so angry that he could strangle his wife, Miriam (Kasey Rogers).  That's about all Bruno needs to know when he calls Guy to see how things went with his wife.  Bruno then tracks and finds Miriam at a local carnival, where he follows her for some time before getting her alone on an embankment by the river.  There he strangles her and slips away. He tells Guy what he's done and expects him to uphold his end of the "bargain".  Bruno's left nothing to chance either - if Guy goes to the police, Bruno can frame him as an accomplice.  Worse still, he has Guy's engraved cigarette lighter, which he plans on taking back to the crime scene.  A battle of wills begins between the two men as complications arise - first Guy's alibi, a man he took the train with during the murder, was too drunk to recall seeing him.  Then the police send a detective to shadow Guy 24/7, making any meetings between him and Bruno difficult and risky.  Bruno starts losing patience and comes out of hiding to start following Guy more closely.  He even invites himself to a big society party with Anne's family (her father is a Senator).  Her sister, Barbara (Patricia Hitchcock) recognizes Bruno after he almost strangles one of the guests and from there one last plan is hatched - Bruno must get back to the crime scene to leave the lighter and frame Guy irrefutably.  A mad chase and a terrifying merry-go-round ride bring this great thriller to a dizzying end.   

Highlights
As in so many Hitchcock films, the cinematography is outstanding.  I found out through TCM that the cinematographer was Robert Burkes, whom had worked with Hitchcock on something like 10 films.  The shots in this movie are so well crafted and again, there is more showing than telling.  I loved the tennis match that Bruno attends - he is the lone spectator whose head does not turn to follow the ball, but instead remains eerily fixated on Guy.  Also, when Bruno is following Miriam in the carnival, she watches him at the strongman game - he looks at his hands, looks at her, picks up the hammer and whacks the target so hard he hits the bell.  It's a testament to the strength in those hands and the look he gives both his hands and then her foreshadows the strangling that follows.  When he wins, he also looks at her and waggles his eyebrows - so creepy!  I mean, his stalking is bad enough, but that look just gave me chills.  She thinks it's flattering to have a man so interested in her (which, by the way, is so messed up! Stalking is NOT OKAY.) which is why she winds up alone with him in the dark struggling for life and losing.  That moment of the murder, we see the act as it is reflected in her glasses, which have fallen into the grass.  It's a beautiful shot and one I'm sure that has been imitated many times since.  The overall art direction is phenomenal and typically in the style of Hitchcock where ever shot tells a part of the story.  Look away for a minute and you've missed so much.

In addition to such fine camera work, we also have great performances by the cast.  In the intro from The Essentials series, they mention that the two lead actors were chosen partly because they had previously always been identified with "everyman" types of roles.  That in itself makes the film even more thrilling - these men are seen as regular guys like anyone in the audience.  Put Vincent Price in that role and forget it, the effect would be gone and the film wouldn't be nearly as good.*  It's what I've seen Hitchcock do in so many of his films.  He takes an everyday person and puts them in an out of the blue, terrifying situation that only escalates.  Think about Cary Grant's character in North by Northwest, or Jimmy Stewart in, well, in any of his Hitchcock films (wow, there were a lot.  perhaps because Jimmy Stewart defined the "everyman" type?).  As long as I'm talking about acting, both Ruth Roman and Patricia Hitchcock also give great performances and sort of help redeem the film from becoming anti-feminist thanks to Miriam.  (Really, Miriam?  If a guy is stalking you like that and won't even speak to you, run away!!!)


I think what I liked the most about this film is how it can be thrilling, suspenseful and downright creepy without anything out of the norm.  What I mean is, there are no vampires, no aliens, no voodoo zombies walking around (not that I don't also love and appreciate those films too).  The fear grows from something as simple and innocuous as two seemingly normal strangers meeting on a train. 

Review and Recommendation

Strangers on a Train reminded me of a pot of water boiling on the stove.  It took some time to get started and after a loud bang or two it slowly grows more fierce until it explodes (okay, so I may have left a pot on the stove once and forgotten about it till the scorched pan started making really odd noises).  The film grows on you, wearing down your patience just as it wears down the characters.  It's true, I thought it was a bit slow at times, but really it was only because all of the action was building, waiting to bubble up and over.  And the ending, well, that is well worth the trip.  Overall, fantastic cinematography, great concept, and good solid acting make this one film I can recommend to anyone.

A few end notes: 
* Don't get me wrong - I love Vincent Price.  He is a great actor in his own right, but his type-casting as the villain in so many horror films would have not helped Hitchcock's cause of the everyman.  If you'd like to see a Vincent Price horror film, I recommend House of Wax.  It was (and probably still is) my favorite horror film. 
 
Also, Alec Baldwin referred to Bruno as one of the top 5 creepiest villains of all classic films.  It makes me wonder who the other 4 are.  I'm sure that Max Cady from Cape Fear is on that list.  Mitchum's performance in that picture reminds me somewhat of Walker's portrayal of Bruno; I wonder if it was an influence.  Something tells me it probably was, as Strangers on a Train is such a standard classic for all film historians.

The Locket (1946)

Intro.

It had been a long while since I had been able to enjoy a nice relaxing evening with take out food and a bunch of great films.  I had plenty on my DVR, so I scrolled through to find one suited for my mood.  I stumbled upon this one, The Locket.  I'm not normally one for melodramas, but as this one starred Laraine Day and Robert Mitchum and added in a psychological twist, I thought it might be good.  As far as story-telling went, it was well worth watching. 

Overview
Basically, this is a story within a story within a story within a story.  The depths of the film are peeled away like onion skins.  First we meet John Willis (Gene Raymond) and his beautiful fiancee Nancy (Laraine Day) at their engagement party.  They seem to be the perfect, happy couple.  But a stranger arrives and asks to see John in private.  The stranger turns out to be Nancy's ex-husband, Dr. Harry Blair (Brian Aherne).  Blair warns John he's making a huge mistake - that Nancy has already ruined the lives of three men.  His story launches a flashback to when he had met Nancy and their lives together.  However, this flashback gets interrupted when Blair explains that he too had been warned about Nancy - about how she alone was responsible for a man being wrongly executed in Sing-Sing.  The man to warn him was named Norman Clyde (Robert Mitchum).  Norman's story launches another flashback about how he had met Nancy.  Apparently Nancy and Norman had been at an art dealer's party (Norman was a painter) and Nancy had stolen a diamond bracelet left by some guest in the bathroom.  She told Norman it was all just her gut reaction - she just wanted it and took it.  Her teary-eyed explanation takes us to the last flashback, which takes place when she was about ten years old and living with her mother, a housekeeper to an extremely rich family.  Nancy was falsely accused of stealing the family's daughter's diamond locket and severely punished for it.  It's more of an emotional beating that leaves grown up Nancy still shaking in Robert's arms as she tells him about it.  He convinces her to mail back the bracelet anonymously.  We think all is resolved until they go to another party and the host is murdered, his prize diamond stolen.  Did Nancy do it?  We don't really know.  But she lies to the police and lets the butler take the fall for the crime (that's 2 of the 3 men whose lives she ruined, if you're keeping score).  Norman desperately tries to save the butler, hence his visit to Blair, but it doesn't do any good.  I won't go on from there except to say that Blair also comes to learn the disturbing truth about Nancy while living with her in England.  Even as a psychiatrist, he cannot help her, and their subsequent divorce leads to her returning and finding John.  It all ends back where it started - with the wedding preparations for Nancy and John.  But Nancy gets the shock of her life when she meets with her mother-in-law, and the film comes to a close.  (No spoilers here!)     

Highlights

I really enjoyed all of the layers to this film.  It was a lot of fun to keep peeling back layer after layer, just as you would to get at the heart of any person's personality.  It had a film noir quality to it as it not only had the multiple flashbacks, but also the overall dark tone.  I realize now as I write this, that there is very little evidence that Nancy killed her host and stole his diamond - the entire case is really built on suspicion and the way Norman reacts to her story.  That part is really well done and intriguing.  Laraine Day is also wickedly delightful as this angel-faced, allegedly-homicidal kleptomaniac.  All the men who surround her are helpless, and only one - Blair - manages to escape in one piece.

Apart from its noir-ish elements, the film really is a melodrama and its attempts at the "psychological drama" aren't done well.  I feel bad to admit this, but the secret at the heart of Nancy's problems didn't really seem all that devastating to me.  The only justification I could see was that perhaps she already had some psychological problems and the incident with the locket was just the trigger she needed.  I almost wish we had some more time with her as she grew up - did the incident that cost her mother's job ruin their family?  Did her mother find work again?  Did she blame Nancy constantly for her unhappiness?  It's a bit of a jump and leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  I don't want to sound cold - anyone would've been severely shaken by that business with the locket, but very few people I know would have turned to theft and purgery and possibly murder.  The ending seemed much too easy, too simple, though the irony of it has a bit of a redeeming quality.  I won't dwell on it more, just in case you decide to watch!  

Review

If you can get past the flaws with motive and psychology, you will find some things to appreciate in The Locket.  For the most part, the story-telling is wonderful.  I really enjoyed all the depths and twists each story took as we went further back into Nancy's past.  The film itself even feels like a case study - as if we are in Dr. Blair's shoes evaluating a patient.  So overall, not one of the best films I've reviewed, but still enjoyable and a good example of plot techniques.

Clue (1985)

Intro.

I know I've mentioned before that the usual designation of a "classic" film is that it must be thirty years old.  These are the films I try to stick to with my write-ups, but sometimes you need to bend the rules a bit.  At 25 years old, Clue has really earned a place in the realm of classic comedies.  As I was fortunate to see it in theaters last weekend, I feel as though I need to review it.

Overview

Based on the classic Parker Brothers board game, Clue takes place in a remote mansion, where six strangers arrive as guests.  They are greeted by a butler, Wadsworth (Tim Curry), then served by a maid (Colleen Camp) and a cook (Kellye Nakahara).  Each guest is given an alias - one of the characters from the board game - and all are seated in the dining room to await their host, Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving).  But when Mr. Boddy is killed, we learn that each guest was being blackmailed by him.  That means anyone could be guilty of murder.  Things go from bad to worse when they discover the cook has also been murdered.  The group splits up to search the house for any other people who may be there.  It seems no one is safe from the murderous rampage - the maid, a stranded motorist who comes in to use the phone, a police officer who came in out of the rain, even a singing telegram girl.  With only a short time before the police come to arrest the killer, the group of guests and the butler rush around to try and figure out who did what where and with what weapon (sound familiar?).  In the end we are treated not just to an ending, but three different endings - as if you're really playing the game.  Was it Ms. Scarlet in the Library with the Gun?  Colonel Mustard in the Study with the Rope?  Professor Plum in the Kitchen with the Wrench?  You'll have a lot of fun trying to figure it out in this mad-cap mystery!  

Highlights

It would have been very easy to go overboard with the comedy in this film, but what the actors did so well (especially Tim Curry) was keep it at just the right speed.  Everything is well timed and well executed.  It creates quite a wild ride that only grows faster and more frantic until you reach the ending at breakneck speed.  Each murder ups the anxiety of the guests and the humor of the film.  It does a great job of following the board game without really overdoing it.  The talented stars really create unique characters too - Martin Mull is Colonel Mustard, Christopher Lloyd is Professor Plum, Madeline Kahn is Ms. White, Eileen Brennan is Mrs. Peacock, Michael McKean is Mr. Green, and Lesley Ann Warren is Ms. Scarlet. 

The best part of the film is the ending.  Wadsworth gathers everyone for his grand revelation and says they have to "retrace" the steps of the evening, which they do at a fantastic run!  He sums it all up and makes his accusation and the murderer confesses.  Then a card comes up on screen like in the old silent films.  It says - "That's how it could have happened." (card changes) "But how about this?"  The second ending then plays out, resuming from the same point where Wadsworth first began his revelation.  At that conclusion, another card appears with "But here's what really happened" and we are treated to yet another answer. 

Review

Clue is a great comedy.  It works on many levels and has the added interest of bringing the much loved board game of whodunit to life.  I know some people who find it a bit too silly, but there are many more I've met who not only love it, but quote it often.  A favorite line among my friends is "Communism was just a red herring."  It's definitely a fun film to watch and enjoy, and I'd recommend it to anyone. 

I should also mention that Clue is very similar to one of my all time favorite comedies, Murder by Death (1976).  That film stars Alec Guiness, Peter Falk, Truman Capote, Peter Sellers, David Niven and many other amazing comedians.  Instead of a board game, it is a spoof of famous literary detectives - Sam Spade becomes Sam Diamond, Hercule Poirot becomes Milo Perrier, and so on.  All the guests arrive at a strange mansion at the request of a mysterious host, Lionel Twain (Capote).  It too is a crazy and hilarious murder mystery and one I'd also recommend - maybe even for a double feature!

Suspicion (1941)

Intro.
I didn't plan to watch a lot of Hitchcock films, but the more I've watched Cary Grant in Hitch's films, the more I love them.  Suspicion was definitely my favorite so far.  I had read a lot about it previously in a few film classes, mainly because it is a prime example of everything Hitchcock did - the camera work is phenomenal, the story is filled with complexity and the characters are deep and well developed.  The special effects are wonderful too, especially the "glowing" glass of milk. 

Overview
Shy intellectual Lina (Joan Fontaine) mingles with the elite crowds of England, going on fox hunts and to balls, but she is afraid of turning into an old maid, a fear her parents have accepted as fact.  So when the charming, gorgeous Johnnie swoops into her life, she falls for him.  In less than two weeks they are married and off to an elaborate honeymoon all over Europe.  When they return to their new mansion, Lina is shocked to find that Johnnie hasn't a cent to his name and abhors the idea of working for a living.  He would rather gamble and take his chances.  The rest of the film focuses on the strain this financial trouble takes on their relationship.  Johnnie, who is obsessed with murder mysteries, starts to become fascinated by poison.  After Johnnie's close friend (and financial business partner) dies, Lina begins to fear that she too will become a victim.  Every move Johnnie then makes she suspects as a possible move to murder her.  It all ends with an incredibly terrifying drive along a cliff and well, let's just say the ending will leave you shocked.

Highlights
As I wrote above, the cinematography is incredible.  The interior of Johnnie and Lina's mansion is shot with lights flooding in through "windows" - we can see the outlines of windowpanes.  In the main foyer, the round window above makes Lina look as though she's trapped in a web, very appropriate for her growing suspicion.  And that famous glass of warm milk that Johnnie brings her (which may be poisoned) glows.  I saw on a documentary once that they had to light the milk from beneath in order to get it just the right glow.  Hitchcock has it beautifully framed too, as Cary Grant switches off the hall light and all you see is that glass of milk.  Even if it was harmless, we as an audience are just as freaked out as Lina. 

Joan Fontaine won an Oscar for this role, and she definitely deserved it.  Her character remains shy throughout the film, but where we initially saw her as completely given over to Johnnie, she quickly grows wary of his gambling and then his interest in murder.  Most impressively, we see just how hard it is for her to put on good face when interacting with the other townspeople.  She must pretend to be the gracious, grateful wife no matter what.  Hitchcock also does a great deal to really build the suspense so that as Lina's suspicion grows, ours does too - the entire film is from her point of view, so we see and hear what she does. 

Cary Grant needs recognition too.  Even though he wasn't nominated, he should have been.  I had my doubts going into this film that anyone could ever believe he could commit murder.  But boy did I believe it!  The traits Lina (and we as the audience) initially found charming grow into annoying and then almost mean.  His tone becomes more sharp and his actions more mysterious.  There's one shot where he stands in Lina's doorway as she's in bed and he looks like, well, he looks like a murderer.  A lot can be contributed to Hitchcock, but I know that any other actor would've had a harder time (trying to picture Jimmy Stewart in this role is ridiculous).  He pulls it off.  Best of all, when the ending is explained (and we realize the truth along with Lina) you can't help but feel your heart wrench.  I got so into the film that I said, "I can't believe I didn't see that!"  Of course I didn't see it, because I was watching from Lina's view point and she didn't see it either.  I won't say any more because I don't want to ruin it, but the end is truly amazing.

Recommendation
I could write a 20 page paper on why this movie deserves the title of "classic."  It's a rich experience and I highly recommend it.  It's one of the best mystery/suspense films I've seen, and definitely one of the best of Hitchcock.  It's a very close second to my favorite Hitch film, Rear Window.  I even want to watch it again, something I rarely think about when I see murder mysteries.  There's so much to see and consider that it has to be on your must-see list (if it isn't already!)