Under Capricorn

Audience Reviews

View All (102) audience reviews

P O One of Hitchcock's worst films. Cotton and Bergman actually helped this film. Wilding's acting was less satisfactory. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 09/30/24 Full Review Georgan G A story of secrets & classism that drive years of suffering. Hitchcock's cameo I didn't find, but did see the generations of truth in the plot. Not my favorite by Hitch, but I still love his work. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 09/29/23 Full Review Blobbo X No suspense from the master of? But Hitchcock was also the master painter, as he so ably demostrated here. Good acting from the beautiful Bergman also a plus. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 08/02/23 Full Review Dick C It's an excellent motion picture, Under Capricorn, a 1949 British historical thriller film directed by Alfred Hitchcock who puts all his focus on the leading actress, Ingrid Bergman...Firstly, she burns the Margaret Leighton's punishing leather stick to demonstrate she's the one in charge now...Secondly, she confesses bravely to the Australian Colony Governor for her murder of her brother...Actually, Alfred shows many things Ingrid's transforming... Casting is strong, such as the "Milly" by Margaret, "Sam" by Joseph Cotten and the last but not the least, final scene, Michael Wilding's statemnet... Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 02/09/23 Full Review matthew d One star is for Ingrid Bergman and the other star is for Joseph Cotten. Alfred Hitchcock's period romance drama Under Capricorn (1949) is a massively disappointing picture. Two of my favorite performers in an Alfred Hitchcock suspense thriller, and it turns out to be a boring waste of time. Hitchcock's suspenseful and engrossing direction is nowhere to be seen as he foolishly chooses to shoot Under Capricorn in 9 or 10 minute long takes that just go on forever. It's not absorbing like Hitchcock's first technicolor film Rope, but rather grating like Saboteur. Nearly nothing happens with no suspense or thrills and the love triangle is really gross and underwritten. Writers Peter Ustinov, Hume Cronyn, Helen Simpson, John Colton, James Bridie, Marjorie Bowen, and Margaret Linden could not salvage an interesting story between 7 of them and all these different versions. Hitchcock barely slapped together a functioning story, but it's still unlikable and predictable. All the little twists can be seen from the beginning as we've seen the manipulative head maid in Rebecca already and the gaslighting behavior inflicted upon Ingrid Bergman before in Gaslight already. Under Capricorn wastes its two wonderful leads by choosing to focus on the ugly and annoying creep Charles Adare, played obnoxiously by Michael Wilding. What Elizabeth Taylor ever saw in him is beyond me. Wilding's character Charles Adare lands in Australia from Ireland to get rich. He immediately imposes himself on Joseph Cotten's far too patient and kind Sam Flusky, by getting money, land, and a position. Then, Adare goes on to try to seduce Ingrid Bergman's mentally and emotionally distressed Lady Henrietta Flusky. He's so sexist and basically forcing himself into her life. Aside from his presumptuous attitude, he gets Cotten's prized horse killed too after Cotten confronts him. Wilding is so dull and awkward that I cannot believe he even got cast in Under Capricorn. Thankfully, Ingrid Bergman, even with dropping her pretend Irish accent after a few minutes to revert back to her native Swedish voice, is quite enthralling. You feel sorry for her sad state. She's believable in every moment. I wish she had more romantic scenes with Joseph Cotten as they're the ones with the real chemistry. Cotten just looks dour and upset until he has to fight for his woman in a burst of rage and emotion. His speeches are as powerful and poignant as Bergman's by the end. You're happy they stay together after all their sacrifices, but I wish Wilding's character would have succumbed to his bullet wound.' Margaret Leighton is pretty and excellent as the jealous and manipulative maid Milly, who is in love with Joseph Cotten. The problem is we've seen this type of character in Hitchcock's Rebecca already back in 1940. Cecil Parker is fun as the fat old governor in charge of Australia, but he's useless and annoying as he insists on his own justice with decent reason. Everyone else is terrible in Under Capricorn. Bert Bates' editing is awful with few cuts and a slow pace. I'm sure Hitchcock wanted this unbearable pace with long takes, but it makes Under Capricorn a dreadfully slow 117 minutes. Jack Cardiff's cinematography is beautiful at times, but so uninteresting with these endless wide shots and still shots for too long. Richard Addinsell's score is forgettable and Thomas N. Morahan's art design is wasted with little going on in his lovely sets. Roger K. Furse and Julia Squire created gorgeous dresses for Ingrid Bergman and Margaret Leighton. Bergman's white gowns look stunning on her and that cute blue dress is adorable on Leighton. Charles E. Parker gave Bergman a very light make-up look that appears natural. She's gorgeous anyways, but it's neat seeing her more natural and vulnerable in Under Capricorn. In short, Joseph Cotten and Ingrid Bergman are worth seeing, but Hitchcock's dry direction leaves much to be desired in this loveless romance drama. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 03/31/23 Full Review Audience Member 3 good performances from Cotten, Bergman and Wilding. Took a while to get going but improved steadily in the second half. Not as stylish or as entertaining as a typical Hitchcock film but better than the ratings suggest. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 01/16/23 Full Review Read all reviews

Under Capricorn

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now