I’ve got To Catch a Thief in my DVD library- although, I was not familiar with it when I purchased it. It was in the $10 bin and I thought, hey, sure I’ve never seen it but it’s Hitchcock + Cary Grant + Grace Kelly, it’s got to be at least half decent- right?
I’ve given it a few tries since owning it- some viewings were aborted part way through. Just watched it again the other night (this time all the way through). It’s really not good. It’s boring.
The story isn’t interesting, nor is it suspenseful (the identify of the mystery thief is obvious at first appearance). The best that could be hoped for is that it serve as a nice vehicle for enjoying the charming attractive leads- but the charming attractive leads don’t deliver! Cary Grant and Grace Kelly have no chemistry together- the “sexy” fireworks scene? ugh, it seems interminable- boring!
Great Hitchcock quotables? Not really. Grace Kelly does have a great line when she intrudes upon Cary Grant’s conversation with Brigitte Auber- Cary Grant immediately suggests that the conversation had been innocuous and that he and Auber were meeting for the first time and talking of nothing important. Grace Kelly says, “Really, it looked like you were conjugating some irregular verbs.” Really the only great line in the whole movie.
The one stand-out aspect of the whole film is Jessie Royce Landis’ performance as Grace Kelly’s mother. She is great. Really funny, really interesting and her eyes are priceless as she flirts with / makes suggestive comments to Cary Grant.
Anyone wanna agree? Or anyone wanna tell me what I’m missing?
Aside: it is freaky watching Grace Kelly’s reckless speeding on a winding narrow mountain road over the Riviera nearly going over cliffs. Like, really. Just freaky.
I think you’ve nailed it, particularly since all the principals (Grant, Kelly, Landis) had done superior work with Hitch just a few years in either direction from this one. Few Hitchcock movies have ever won an Oscar, but this one did, for Cinematography–largely because of the French Riviera gorgeousness, not because there was anything particularly special or innovative in the lensing. The chemistry works OK so long as you purge Notorious (Grant w/Bergman) or Rear Window (Kelly w/Stewart) out of your mind. Essentially, it’s a thin story about Beautiful People in a Beautiful Setting wearing Beautiful Clothes, with very little sense of rhythm or suspense or originality. Most of Hitch’s movies from the 50s are worth revisiting, but this is a notable exception.
I just watched this a week or so ago as well. It wasn’t an awful way to spend 100 minnutes, but I agree with pretty much everything so far in this thread. I did like the whole scene with Kelly, Grant, and Auber in the ocean. There were a couple of good barbs, and Brigitte Auber was gorgeous. I liked her line to Kelly, something like “Let’s continue this discussion in shallower water.” Otherwise, the movie was pretty forgettable.
Hitchcock was unsatisfied with what remained a rambling, rather formless comic thriller.
When the film opened, one typically negative reviewer wrote “Quite often, you can look beyond the actors and enjoy the view without missing anything important”. The Hollywood Reporter felt that Hitchcock had made more mistakes in the first five minutes of To Catch A Thief than in all his previous pictures put together.
This comment, according to scriptwriter John Michael Hayes, sent Hitchcock to bed for three days, prostrate with grief and anxiety.
Source: Donald Spoto - The Dark Side of Genius (The Life of Alfred Hitchcock).
I gotta agree with you, big yawn. I watched this not long ago because it was referenced somewhere else, maybe a DVD commentary I was listening to, and I thought like you did, Cary Grant/Grace Kelly/Hitchcock/Riviera how bad could it be?
bo ring. My favorite part was Grace Kelly’s evening dresses, which were fabulous, and in fact, might have been what was referenced in whatever made me check it out.
To Catch A Thief has some nice scenery, but even the presence of the lovely Grace Kelly couldn’t jazz it up enough to make it more than a middling entry into Hitchcock’s c.v. Cary Grant, as brilliant as he was with screwball comedy, was always somewhat hammy in dramatic roles, coming off as kind of a second rate Gregory Peck, and seemed to mostly be mailing in his performance.
While we’re at it, I’ve never really gotten the bravado for North By Northwest; it is a decidedly silly plot, Eva Marie Saint is almost farcical as a love interest for Grant, and while James Mason was able to elevate himself in any of the many crappy roles he had, in this film he couldn’t be more of a ham if served up with mustard on rye.
I’d rather watch Notorious, Vertigo, or Rear Window any day than either of the above supposed masterpieces of Hitchcock’s oeuvre.
I’ve never been a huge fan of TCAT but I have to disagree about Kelly and Grant not having chemistry. I think they have it in spades. The picnic scene in the car is very, very sexy to me. Plus it makes me want chicken.
Actually I feel the way the OP does about Vertigo, which I sat through once and have no desire to see again, and North by Northwest, which I can’t seem to sit through at all.
Funny, I would’ve thought a different film was your favorite. The name escapes me, though … something with Farley Granger.
Substitute your Doper name for Notorious and I’m with you all the way. I put Psycho just below this group and used to think Marnie and The Birds were worth the trouble.
The more years that pass, the more I believe Hitchcock is confined to the mid-20th century for his impact and contributions to cinema.
Vertigo is definitely a film that is something of an acquired taste; it is not a thriller in the traditional sense. It took me at least three viewings before I really learned to appreciate it.
Not a fan of the film, given the deviations from the Patricia Highsmith novel that was the source material.
I can’t see what’s “farcical” about Eva Marie Saint being a love interest for Cary Grant – he was still good looking enough in that movie; I totally bought it.
