Marnie (1964) User Reviews (289)

Yet another underrated Hitchcock

[TexMetal4JC · 8/10 · 13 July 2001]

The rumors surrounding Marnie - the last in an amazing run of truly great Hitchcock movies that lasted from 1950-1964 - are plentiful. All of them consist of director Alfred Hitchcock's growing obsession for Tippi Hedrin (who starred in The Birds one year earlier). By the end of the movie, Hitchcock would not talk to Hedrin or even refer to her by name (this following a supposed failed pass at Hedrin), and his friends say Marnie was the last movie Hitchcock truly cared about.

Regardless of the rumors, Marnie was a box-office failure and went unnoticed until recently when DVD brought back Hitchcock's unremarkable films, along with his classics. And behold, from the ashes ariseth... Marnie.

Starring Hedrin as Marnie and Sean Connery as the man who falls in love with her, this movie tells of a compulsive thief and pathalogical liar who is caught by Connery and blackmailed into marrying him. Connery finds that Hedrin has incredible fears of red and thunderstorms, refuses to let men touch her and has disturbing dreams brought on by knocks at her door. Connery must play the dual role of keeping Marnie away from the police while trying to find out why she does what she does.

This is indeed an excellent Hitchcock film. He reminds the audience that he did start out directing silent movies, and uses this silence very well in the robbery/cleaning lady scene. The moments leading up to Marnie's revealing flashback are incredible, and the movie reeks of typical Hitchcock: slow, methodic pacing to a brilliant and stunning climax.

Marnie is not a patented "Hitchcock classic": The fades-to-red have not aged well (if they ever did look good), the horse-riding scenes just don't work, and the backgrounds are obviously fake (although it has been speculated that Hitchcock did this on purpose -- whatever the case he later regretted it). But the basic premise, the acting, the directing are all top notch and have turned Marnie into another of the "Underrated Hitchcock"s.

8/10

Fascinating and underrated

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 16 April 2013]

Marnie is not perfect, the horse riding scenes are artificially edited and some of the sets seemed somewhat plastic-theatre-backdrop standard. However, while Marnie is not one of Hitchcock's very finest films, it is one of his most underrated. And I don't think it is close to his worst, his weakest overall for me is Jamaica Inn and Topaz the worst of his late-period films. Hitchcock directs splendidly with a lot of memorable touches in the final thirty minutes that are his style all over, while the photography is suave, atmospheric and above all striking. Bernard Hermann's score, while not quite as good as his ones for Vertigo and Psycho, fits perfectly and has a very haunting edge. The dialogue has wit and intensity, which makes the many talky scenes in Marnie interesting. The story is slow in pace but didn't bore me, here there are themes that are not easy to talk about that are explored compellingly and tastefully. The final thirty minutes is edge-of-your-seat stuff, to me the best final act of any Hitchcock film pro-Psycho. The characters are not easy to engage with and very complex, especially Hedren's, but all the actors give their all to making them interesting to the viewer. Grace Kelly may be more people's idea of icy aloofness needed for the woman who steals to forget, but Tippi Hedren particularly in the final act does a very good job(though I preferred her in The Birds). Sean Connery has a very atypical role, his character is somewhat boorish and calculating but he brings those qualities across as well as his trademark suavity and charm. Diane Baker is terrific, and Louise Latham is genuinely frightening as the mother figure. Bruce Dern and Martin Gabel don't have as much to do, but they are good too. To conclude, a fascinating film. 8/10 Bethany Cox

"You're aching my leg, Marnie"

[BumpyRide · 8/10 · 3 September 2004]

Add me to the group of viewers who like this film. Yes, it is long and heavy on dialog, but visually stunning, and Bernard Herrmann's music is rich and vibrant. The best score he has ever composed.

For me, I have favorite scenes in the movie, for example the opening shot of a woman carrying a yellow purse. From there we go to her hotel room and watch as she transforms herself into another person. Old clothes get discarded in a train locker and the key gently kicked down a grate. All of this is done with no words, but wonderful camera angles, and accompanied by a great musical score.

The office scene where Marnie waits in the women's room before robbing the safe. You only hear the voices of her co-workers saying good night for the weekend. Again, this entire scene is done visually, only this time with a split screen showing Marnie and the cleaning lady simultaneously, as if we are watching a play. Only when the shoe falls from her coat pocket do we know that the cleaning woman is hard of hearing and the scene is now concluded.

There are several vignettes such as these that make the movie interesting. Yes, the riding scenes are fake looking, and I think it was just a case where Alfred just didn't quite keep up with technology. But when you think of Marnie, this is the last, true Alfred Hitchcock movie we will ever see. From then on, we never again see a grand production with high production values as we have here.

Yes it has flaws, and the acting may not be up to par at times, but there are worthwhile aspects that make this movie a classic in the Hitchcock canon.

Freud, Hitchcock, Sex and Suspense

[jay_thompson680 · 19 June 2004]

Hitchcock's Marnie was a critical and financial failure when released in 1964. Some decades afterwards, the film was 'rediscovered' by film theorists fascinated by its engagement with issues such as Freudian psychoanalysis, sexual abuse, gender roles, trauma, sexual deviance.

The central plot revolves around Marnie, a habitual thief who goes to work for large corporations, steals from her (always male) boss, then flees - dying her hair, changing her name and then starting over again.

One employer, Mark Rutland, recognises her from one of her previous companies. When she robs him, he pursues and marries her. Playing Freud to her Jane, he alternates between trying to get her into bed and determining the link between her thefts and her fear of sex, thunder storms, the colour red and men.

Tippi Hedren is ideally suited for the role of Marnie; her trembling-but-firm voice and impassive, doll-like face give her the look and feel of a tough-yet-vulnerable child-woman, lost in a nightmare world. Sean Connery is terrific as

Rutland, and the interaction between his character and Marnie suggests (at times) a slight subversion of gender roles. She may be troubled, but she won't easily fall under his net (he likens her to a wild animal) - and will tell him!

Throughout the film, there is a brilliant use of colour, and some memorably dreamlike shots: the opening of Marnie (her face unseen) with black hair, walking as if in a daze along a railway platform and through a hotel; the hand banging against a window, alarming the sleeping Marnie; the flashback to the woman's troubled past.

Unfortunately - and other reviewers on IMDb have argued this - the film's editing is often lazy. Some scenes go on for far too long, and are way too chatty. More show and less tell, I say! There are those fake backdrops. They can be seen to suggest Marnie's detachment from the world (as Hitch once argued), but why couldn't he include them with every shot of her? Laziness, again?

Then there's Lil, the sister of Mark's dead wife. Diane Baker gives a terrific performance, and there is the suggestion that Lil's attraction to her former brother-in-law might be deceptive... it could be Marnie she's after. Just check out the look she gives Marnie when they first meet and her remark ('Who's that Dish'?) But the lesbian subtext is never explored. Lil's character is never developed beyond a woman who alternates between smiling and scowling at Marnie, and then disappearing before the dramatic 'final confession'.

Otherwise, a brave film, elegant to look at, and rich with issues for the film theorist AND the 'casual' viewer to explore.

A memorable mystery drama for the way in which Hitchcock squeezed and twisted suspense out of the simplest materials

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 4 January 2009]

The childhood roots of Marnie's problem were certainly the fulcrum of the plot; but they were also a vital strand in her character, the main force of her motivation…

Marnie Edgar (Tippi Hedren) is a psychologically scarred gray-suited serial thief who would take a job in an office, win liking and trust by her good looks, manners and work; then steal the safe and move to another part of the country, changing her look, her name, and her identity…

This what she does when she went to work for Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), a wealthy sadist businessman; but he replaced the stolen money, tracked her down, and blackmailed her with two alternatives: to go to jail or to marry him…

Only, besides Marnie's traumas and aftermaths, she was cool, desperately detached, and couldn't find in herself any affection for any living thing except fondness for horses… Sexually, she was extremely cold, and her marriage was not consummated... And she was continually afraid of thunderstorms and couldn't handle the red color…

I don't want to spoil some of other brilliant little touches, but Marnie had always said she was an orphan, and Mark tracked down her icy mother (Louise Latham), and brought the two face to face… There was a beautifully acted scene here when the two met up again and Bernice who even now could show no more affection to her daughter than Marnie could to her husband

Bertolucci's favorite Hitchcock

[marcosaguado · 10/10 · 15 April 2017]

To find out that Bernardo Bertolucci, the director of Last Tango In Paris, loves Marnie makes a lot of sense, to me anyway. If you think about it, Last Tango In Paris could have been a Hitchcock movie. An American in Paris meets a young girl, they have sex without knowing anything about each other and ends up in murder. Marnie is truly perverse and Sean Connery's obsession for Tippi Hedren is infinitely more perverse than whatever poor Tippi Hedren suffers from. He is turned on by her rejection. The kiss during the gelid honeymoon stays inches away from necrophilia. right?. The script is just delicious. Sean Connery goes for the troublesome center of his character, yes he does, whether consciously or unconsciously. Tippi Hedren is terrific here and with all the things we know now about the making of the movie her performance has acquired some extra something. Diane Baker as the scorned sister in law is a delight. So here we are, talking about a movie made 53 years ago. Time does extraordinary things.

Big comedown for Hitchcock after "The Birds", though interesting for the ways he challenges the limits of the era's censorship

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 15 November 2020]

"Marnie" is one of the least essential-to-watch Hitchcock films: he plays one ingenious trick on the audience (the robbery and the cleaning lady), but apart from that one sequence, there are hardly any memorable set-pieces or flourishes (the screen going red a few times does not count). Like "Suddenly, Last Summer", the entire film hinges on what-happened-that-fateful-day. But unlike SLS, where the ultimate revelation is genuinely shocking, the ending of "Marnie" leaves us with an "is that all?" feeling. Very good performances by both Tippi Hedren and Sean Connery, full-blown score by Berrnard Hermann. **1/2 out of 4.

A terrific, underrated movie.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 30 June 2023]

Marnie operates as a confidence trickster, taking her cash from her employers, and changing her identity along the way, she's spotted one day by a wealthy businessman named Mark, who tries to help her see the error of her ways.

This seems to be one of the more underrated Hitchcock movies, it doesn't seem to be as worshipped as the likes of Vertigo and The Birds, but I think it deserves more acclaim. Hitchcock definitely pushed the boundaries with Marnie, in many ways it was ahead of its time, tackling subjects that are this time weren't often talked about.

What's so interesting about this film, is learning what makes Marnie tick, the history with her mum, and her terror of blood, you have to wait to learn everything, but its worth the wait.

The filming and camera work are terrific, so many scenes are memorable, that moment where Marnie is raiding the safe, with the cleaner at work the other side of the door, that was great, that moment where Mark leans over her on the ship, that was also a great piece of filming.

Two incredible performances, Tippi Hedren is perfect as Marnie, she's conniving, smart, broken, but glamorous and determined. Connery is the perfect counter balance, he's tough, forthright, confident and fiendishly handsome, the pair combine incredibly well.

It deserves more acclaim.

9/10.

Unusual Hitchcock—where marriage is preferred over jail by a strong-willed woman

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 1 April 2006]

This is not the stuff that director Hitchcock is usually attracted to. Hitchcock was scared of jails. In this film, the lead female character prefers to be bridled by marriage rather than jail. It is an intriguing choice for a character who had earlier stated to her husband "You don't love me. I am something you have caught. Some kind of wild animal you have trapped." Aware of this, the young lady who has so far fooled a lot of rich men and escaped the law, prefers marriage to jail. She is smart, a woman who embezzles her employers to buy rich gifts for her mother, aware of modesty in dress (keeps pulling her skirt over her knees) and a convincing liar. Like "Notorious," the marriage is one of convenience, or so it appears—the end of the film is open-ended.

For those who are not aware of it, Hitchcock fired the initial scriptwriter (a male), who honestly felt the rape of the wife by the husband was out character with male lead played by Sean Connery. The replaced scriptwriter (a lady) wrote the sequence which was used, in a suggestive way rather than a graphic way. Hitchcock loved to slip in sex even if it was out of character. Lesbianism is suggested by the husband's sister-in-law's remark "What a dish!" a remark one would associate from the opposite sex. (Hitchcock similarly played with homosexuality in "Rope"). A critical scene that could be mistaken for child molestation was probably an innocent gesture mistaken by the mother.

Hitchcock usually was attentive to visuals and sound. This is an unusual film where the director swings from one extreme of high sophistication to absolute stupidity. The opening shots of the woman walking away with the yellow handbag are stunning. The silent "cleaning" of the office safe, while a deaf woman cleans the office is simply outstanding. Yet the crass painting of a dock near Marnie's mother's house would make a school kid laugh out loud. Why would a woman who is scared of red wear red lipstick or not react when her husband's sister-in-law wears red at a party? Similarly, the shot of Marnie's hand not being able to pick up the money in the safe is an unconvincing shot, if ever there was one.

The film can be appreciated and be equally dismissed. The acting by all the main characters was good but Louise Latham performance (and make up!) needs to be singled out for praise. Kubrick seems to have copied Hitchcock's Marie's voice differentiation in the young child's voice in "The Shining." I am not surprised if people swing from liking the film to dismissing it and back again. It has great elements and bad elements as well—yet the bottom line is, it entertains!

A memorable Hitchcock movie

[cjh668908 · 10/10 · 22 March 2011]

Marnie (1964) is considered by many to be Alfred Hitchcock's last great movie. This movie is certainly different from most of Hitchcock's movies. Most of Hitchcock's movies have a certain signature Hitchcock "feel" to them, much like John Carpenter, Stephen Spielberg, and George Lucas movies have a certain signature "feel" to them that are vintage Carpenter, Spielberg, and Lucas. Marnie retains a lot of the Hitchcock feel, but this movie is a slight departure from his previous work. This movie really can't be classified into one category, such as a straight psychological thriller, a suspense thriller, a detective story, a mystery, a romance, etc. Whereas most Hitchcock movies put less focus on the characters and more focus on the suspense, Marnie puts most of the focus on one character and less focus on the suspense. This movie is highly personal and psychological. This movie stars 'Tippi' Hedren, Sean Connery, Diane Baker, Louise Latham, Mariette Hartley, Martin Gabel, and Alan Napier. Hedren plays the role of Marnie Edgar, a strange woman with psychological problems who is a professional thief and has an intense fear of men, thunderstorms, and even the color red. To sum up the plot in a nutshell, she empties her employer's safe and escapes. Sean Connery plays the role of Mark Rutland, owner of a publishing company that Marnie applies for a new job at. Marnie robs him as well. However, Rutland is infatuated with her. He tracks her down, but rather than turning her in to the authorities, he convinces her to marry him. While on their honeymoon, he realizes that she actually has a fear of men and fears intimacy. He gets more aggressive with her, resulting in her attempting suicide. Her intense fear of men is rooted in a traumatic childhood experience she had. Watch to find out how everything unfolds.

The musical score by Bernard Herrmann is memorable and is one of the strong points of the movie. The score is one of the best of all the Hitchcock movies, in my opinion (my other candidates are Vertigo and Psycho). There are some suspenseful moments. The special effects and some of the sets are pretty simple and low tech, but this doesn't detract from the film at all, in my opinion.

The acting is excellent. Sean Connery was excellent. It was great to see Alan Napier in the movie. I thought 'Tippi' Hedren's performance was outstanding. Her acting in The Birds (1963) was great, but she takes things to another level in Marnie. Originally, Hitchcock wanted to cast Grace Kelly in the role of Marnie, but she had to turn it down. I think 'Tippi' Hedren was the perfect actress for the part, and she delivered. I also like Diane Baker in this movie. I have a weakness for movies with good looking women in them.

This movie did poorly at the box office when it was released, probably because audiences were used to getting movies that were less personal, less psychological, and more suspenseful from Hitchcock each time, and Marnie was a departure from that. However, this movie's stature has grown immensely since 1964. As for myself, this is one of those rare movies that drew me in right from the start and kept my attention, but multiple viewings might be required in order for one to fully understand and appreciate it for what it is.

The DVD's extras include a documentary called The Trouble With Marnie, which basically is about the making of the movie and the movie's historical status, a picture gallery called The Marnie Archives, and the theatrical trailer.

Overall, this is a good Hitchcock flick if you're into this type of movie, whatever it's classified as (Hitchcock called it a sex mystery).

"And I've caught something really wild this time, haven't I?"

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 8 December 2007]

For any sense of appreciation for this movie, I think you first have to get past the absurdity of the basic plot. You figure that Mark Rutland became president of his family's business because he had a fair amount of business acumen and a semblance of common sense. Once he realizes that Mary Taylor has robbed his safe and has a history of aliases in other cities doing the same, how is it he keeps the romance going? Especially when Marnie makes every effort to dissuade him at every turn. They say love is blind and marriage is an eye opener, but it seems to me that Rutland had his eyes sewn shut.

With that off my chest, director Hitchcock does a decent enough job of maintaining intrigue and suspense in the story; the aforementioned safe robbery scene with the cleaning lady was particularly noteworthy. Yet at the same time, I have to wonder why Hitch resorted to such almost comical techniques as used in the riding sequence of the fox hunt scene and the rapid zoom in and out of the money in the safe. The latter reminded me of some of those 1940's Warner Brothers cartoons that employ a similar device. It had the feel of a fledgling director who might still be searching for his own vision in making a picture instead of someone with a whole pile of them under his belt already. I have to tell you though, the scene that made me wince was Marnie's horse taking that fall over the jump.

You know what the biggest surprise for me was? Finding out that actress Louise Latham played the parts of both the elder Mrs. Edgar and the young mother of Marnie in the scene with the sailor. The makeup job was so good for both characterizations that it even fooled Hitchcock's assistant director on the set, who asked who the actress was to show up for the flash back filming.

Coming off of Hitchcock's suspense thriller "The Birds", I thought Tippi Hedren did more than a competent job as the conflicted title character, bringing a range of emotion to a role that could have wound up a caricature if not done as well. Opposite Sean Connery, Hedren wondered how she could pull it off. Credit director Hitchcock with a firm but insightful bit of advice - "It's called acting".

"Mother, mother, I am ill...."

[Oggz · 10/10 · 16 November 2006]

Far and away my favourite Hitch and in my top five movies of all time (yes, I'm very biased but there you go), "Marnie" stands out as one of the most deliciously bitter, malevolent and sardonic "romance" stories ever made, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that it is either sworn by or passionately hated by general public. It is, however, no less influential than any of the acclaimed and widely loved films that Hitch made previously. Even the staunchest of Hitchcock's fans seem to be bitterly divided over this one though, some among them simply not being able to forgive him for being so direct and blatant in choice and treatment of his subject matter (let alone technical inadequacies) - and for delivering a slow, sombre, pain ridden and malignant psychosexual drama, whereas others, myself included, revel in those very aspects of the film. Hedren and Connery's singular coupling on screen and their performances have also been subject to much heated debate - in my opinion they're both excellent, in that they very successfully portray genuinely unlovable characters and play off one another almost instinctively and to great effect, helped by a phenomenally sarcastic dialogue and more than memorable quips ("The idea was to kill myself, not to feed the damned fish", as well as the entire "You Freud, me Jane" sequence). Delightful.

Hedren is adequately surly, bitter, spiteful, troubled and fragile all at the same time, her average acting talents and icy beauty working for the film rather than against it, whereas Connery is nothing short of a perverse yet suave male filthy pig dying to get in between her treasured legs and "take legal possession" for precisely those reasons. Unsurprisingly, the chapter in acclaimed Truffaut's book of interviews with Hitch that belongs to "Marnie" is subtitled "Un Amour Fetishiste" - read it. It's interesting that Hitchcock had troubles with his leading ladies in some of his best films - his disdain of Kim Novak and endless arguments he had with her on set are all well documented, in addition to his falling out with Hedren halfway through "Marnie". Both films are laced with moments of electrifying energy maybe just for that reason, and both women look spectacular on screen. In any case, it's perfect casting for both leads in this one, in addition to a brilliant support led by Latham and Baker, not to mention Herrmann's emotional score, which so assuredly bounces between hysterical, pleading, lustful, torturous, and tragic - and back again.

Aside from directorial touches of genius (who doesn't get goosebumps when Marnie first reveals her face after washing out the hair dye) - there are undoubtedly many, many flaws and technically weak places in the film - the zooming in and out on the money in the Rutland safe is a particular standout in that respect, totally over the top and downright silly. Obviously painted backdrops and horseriding sequences have all been slagged off to death as well (altough surprisingly these don't seem to bother people that much when systematically applied in "The Birds"), but they are more than compensated for by the greyish, autumnal and trance-like feel of the film, and are very likely deliberately calculated in to greatly enhance the overall atmosphere. Hitch doesn't even try to win the viewer's affection by injecting a bit of his trademark humour in this doleful story and rightly so - it would have suffered immeasurably and would have been totally out of place. For this is a serious film about both female and male emotional and sexual hang ups (Hedren: "I'm sick?? Well take a look at yourself, old dear!!...you've got a pathological fix on a woman who's not only an admitted criminal but who screams if you come near her!!" - Connery: "Well I never said I was perfect") - "un grand film malade", as Truffaut affectionately put it - therefore no humour, apart from the bitterest variety, no happy ending, no sympathetic characters we can identify with, nothing. But the manner in which the film ends - the car departing, exiting from screen where previously we saw no street, road or way out - gives a flicker of hope that Marnie will eventually, with or without Mark, be able to find her peace. You can either love or despise the symbolism - it's entirely left to you.

I always thought of "Marnie" as a guilty pleasure of mine

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 20 July 2021]

In many ways it is a cheesy film, well executed by a master director who knew what he was doing.

First, the idea that Marnie can successfully disguise herself by changing her hair color is akin to believing that King Lear effectuated a good disguise by rubbing dirt on his face.

Second , casting Sean Connery ( a truly amazing looking leading man, no complaints here) as a patrician Philadelphian is hilarious. Even Alan Napier, who is a lot more believable as a Main Line scion is stretching things. Philadelphians of that class look patrician but have very flat, nasal voices, not the distinguished British accent which Napier brings to his role. Maybe Hitchcock should have asked Grace Kelly what she sounded like before she eradicated her Philadelphia accent. (Louise Latham also sounds implausible as a Baltimoran. Their accents are even more nasal than Philadelphians' accents).

Third, the rear screen projection which is acceptable in the 30's and 40's is too passe in a 60's film, as is the painted backdrop of the Port of Baltimore at the end of Mrs. Edgar's street. By this time, Hitchcock could have done some location filming, or had his production designer and a second unit director film these brief scenes to edit into his movie.

Fourth, the plot requires the suspension of disbelief to swallow. Both Connery and Hedren are so psychologically mixed up as to be dysfunctional, who would want either one of them, no matter how good looking? As for Hedren's performance, I see her as a heavy handed actress , who at times is too hammy, and at other times too plodding. I rarely think of her as giving a delicately wrought performance.

Somehow Hitchcock is so masterful at his art, that he manages to turn out an entertaining movie in spite of all of these and more problems.

A few good ideas as well as a lot of psychological hooey and plot holes through which you could drive a bus!

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 19 March 2007]

This is a good looking film and it is technically well made. However, once you peel away the excellent direction and well-coiffed hairdos, you are left with a very silly film indeed.

As an ex-therapist and psychology teacher, SOME psychological aspects of the film were very, very interesting while other parts were so flawed and silly I found myself laughing during the second half of the film. Marnie has an Antisocial Personality Disorder. She hates men and takes great pleasure in stealing--and has no pangs of conscience whatsoever. In addition, she has a classic case of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder because throughout the film she had flashbacks from an early childhood trauma. Lots of little things, such as thunder and the color red trigger these memories.

Now so far, none of the qualities I listed above would make it seem like she's a good candidate for marriage--especially since the touch of a man fills her with disgust. So naturally, when Sean Connery discovers that she is a career criminal, he falls for her and marries her!!! Can anyone really be that stupid? Perhaps,...but it gets worse. He discovers on their honeymoon (after he blackmailed her into marrying him) that she is 100% frigid--and boy, do I mean FRIGID!!! She even tries to kill herself after he forces himself on her (or tries to force himself--the film is unclear here). Now what would any sane man do now--she's a crook, she's cold and indifferent towards him and is nauseated by sex--yep, he'll stay married to her and try to work it all out without outside professional help!! After all, his college training as a botanist certainly would qualify Connery to treat her!! At this point in the film, I felt really irritated. Most of it was because it was such a silly premise. But, when together they face up to her childhood trauma it all comes flooding back and she's magically cured, it was just too much! Maybe Connery missed his calling--after all, no therapist is THAT good and he could have made far more money doing that instead of acting!!! All in all, some very interesting and brave topics but handled in a ham-fisted and silly manner--as if Hitchcock and the writers read an intro psychology text and then decided to make a film!!! Pure hooey despite some interesting performances.

An underrated masterpiece!

[movie_lover_gurl · 5 July 2000]

When Marnie was first released it was (quite unfairly) dismissed by critics. It has since been come to be known as one of Hitchcock's great films though. Tippi Hedren stars as Marnie. She is a liar and a thief. She has stolen large amounts of money from her employers on various occasions. Things start to change as she begins to work for the dashing Mark Rutland though. He becomes romantically interested in her but not wanting to get close to anybody she decides to steal the money and escape as quickly as she can. However, Mark catches her red handed and he gives her the choice of marrying him or being held accountable for her crimes. She chooses to marry him but he comes to find out that she can't stand to be touched by any man. He realizes that she has a deep seated problem from her past and that he must now help her to confront this. Marnie is a wonderful film and it is very underrated. A lot of people have watched it and it has gone over their heads therefore leading to the underrated status. It is much the same with Tippi Hedren's performance. Even though it is brilliant alot of people cannot see how wonderful it really is. Sean Connery is also very good.

It is really too bad that some people can't see Marnie for the masterpiece that it is. It's really quite pointless to call Marnie a "flawed" film as well. If Marnie is truly watched intelligently you will see that this is not the case. Marnie deserves far more credit than it gets. If you watch it I hope that you enjoy it as much as I have.

5 stars / 5 stars

Unusual Hitchcock suspenser--intriguing but overlong and miscast

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 24 December 2006]

Critically-drubbed suspense-melodrama from Alfred Hitchcock has eternally-lackluster Tippi Hedren playing the mysterious, troubled Marnie, a frigid kleptomaniac (!) whose modus operandi is to disguise herself, change her name and rip off a series of trusting employers; her latest boss, a peculiarly cast Sean Connery, takes a liking to her and hopes to cure Marnie of her ills. Lack of chemistry between the intentionally-icy Hedren and too-patient Connery just about kills the romance angle (is he turned on by her fear of sex? And, if so, what's in his background to make an obviously virile man want to play doctor to this skittish kitten?). The movie's production is smothered with sterile gloss, and every new set-up is plastic and unconvincing. Still, the supporting cast is quite good (particularly Diane Baker) and the resolution is there, for those who manage to stick with it. **1/2 from ****

Great, Genius

[scream25281 · 9/10 · 2 October 2003]

Marnie is a misunderstood masterpiece from the Hitchcock. Often cited as an example of a messy, flawed genius - it can be off putting to some since its quite talky. However stick with it and you will be intrigued and itching to discover all about Marnie (contrary to what most say, played with understated brilliance from Tippi Hedren).

The direction and cinematography is exceptional with Hitchcock and his usual crew i.e. Rob Burks etc on form. The atmosphere generated (apart from being 'Hitchcocky') is unique, dark, gloomy and at times akin to a horror film, yet it is utterly appealing and compelling. Theres an almost creepy, artificial humanless feel to proceedings as a result of the direction and how the actors have been directed to act as is briefly highlighted by a Hitchcock scholar in the documentary on the disk. Hitchcock knows the art of cinema, no flashy fast cuts or fast moving camera's as we see nowadays, but measured, inspired direction laced with flourishes of creative genius (thats Hithcock for you). Atmosphere, emotion is built up like poetry. Witness for example some moments of genius such as the final revelation, in what is one of Hitchcocks most underrated, powerful and shocking pieces of direction; the riding sequence which culminates in Marnies fantastic yet disturbing line of dialogue, " there there....", and also sinister momnets such as when Marnies mother wakes here from her nightmare- her voice disturbingly artificial in its lack of emotion and empathy for a clearly distraught Marnie.

Speaking of the mother, Louise Latham -the actress behind the role effortlessly steals the show from an already superb Hedren and Connery. Latham eleicits an absolutely breathtaking performance. Her character is frighteningly creepy, tragic, powerful and marvellously played to keep up the suspense and intrigue. You don't know what to make of the character except of the fact she knows or has played a part in Marnies psychological condition. In fact I would go as far as to say it is one of the greatest performances in a Hitchcock picture - an example of genius casting. Similarly her character is arguably the greatest 'mother' character in any Hitchcock film beating Pyscho and Notorious' madame Sebastion.

Marnie is a truly great picture and definetly Hitchcocks last great although Frenzy is a nice enough distraction. Not as good as Vertigo or Rear Window but certainly up there in the higher echelons of Hitchcocks work.

9/10

Sean Connery is boning up on Marnie's life.

[ironhorse_iv · 6/10 · 28 February 2013]

I like most Alfred Hitchcock's movie, but this movie was pretty hard to sit through. I didn't really dislike the film, but it's wasn't his best. Still, this is a good psychological drama. Love the famous vagina-like purse. Hitchcock was a keen Freudian and he definitely meant the handbag to represent the womb. Watch it "give birth" to all that money that Marnie need! Margaret "Marnie" Edgar (Tippi Hedren) is troubled young woman whom steals from companies. The oppressive silence robbery scene is one of the best, most tense scenes in movie history, the quietness is what makes it so realistic. I've always thought that thievery is a very interesting theme in film. The film lose it's edge, by Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), a large publishing company owner catch her in the act of stealing. Rather than turning her in, he pretty much black mails her to become his wife. Mark acts like a sexual predator whom catch his greatest pray, a woman who has an unnatural fear and mistrust of men, thunderstorms, and the color red. The woman is sexually traumatized. I feel very sorry for her. She steals money because of an emotional void in her life. She is afraid of sex. That means that she has never been in love or shared real romantic intimacy or achieved earth shattering orgasm. She was never blissfully happy by feeling complete with a boyfriend or husband. She does not want to marry or have children, but Mark force her to love him which force her to go through hell. He takes advantage of her catatonic 'submissive' state and get what he wants to the point of rape. Yes, it was 'rape'. It's rape because she's frigid and unwilling. Why do you think she tried to kill herself? I don't think in his mind he thought he was committing rape, he was just getting his 'conjugal rights', she signed on the dotted line to granting him 'conjugal rights' when she married him or else in law, the marriage is null and void. This movie felt like a woman's personally life being exposed, rape, and her faults being put on the table. This movie is unpleasant and Hitchcock tries to hide it through any means. Hitchcock insisted that Mark should be played by the sexy, dashing Connery--then at the height of his Bond years--that audiences would accept this unquestioningly. Plus this was 1963-4, remember, an era when sex was accepted as a husband's right, regardless of the circumstances. Sean Connery is still brutal and suave in this film. James Bond will return in Dr. No Means No. Hitchcock battled with screenwriter Evan Hunter over its inclusion - eventually getting Jay Presson Allen to write it. Hunter believed it implausible for a character like Mark to commit these acts. The movie has the 'rape' has romanticized as well. I find Connery zoologist character playing dime store psychologist, mining a sense of how deeply disturbed Marnie was and then taking the liberty of exposing her is downright wrong. It didn't help to know that Hitchcok himself sexually assaulted Hedren halfway through production as well, to get her into the role. He was taking the role, too serious for art's sakes. Hitchcock was so awful with harassing poor Tippi Hedren, must have been terrible working with him and she never work with him again. Another fault of the film is the over used of cheesy effects, such as over use of lighting, the fake backdrops and the way he use the color red. I can honestly understand the color of red being tapped into the film, but it was badly introduction in a Ed Wood type matter. The movie has some good things about it. Yes, it had the Hitchcock cameos, which are his "signature" and a superior Herrmann score and not just the titles, but through the entire film. The symbolism between the horse and the mother's leg is interesting. If you knew anything about Hitchcock, you'd know that his movies most often featured disturbing content; it is what his career thrived on. He loved making the audience squirm, and he took on this project because he knew a movie like this was taboo. He has always used sex and violence as arousal. Watch Psycho again for the similar affect in the bath tub. His point is that, you can show the hell out of violence but never sex, so you have to combine the two so the audience member becomes aroused via imagination. It's not explicit, but it's very disturbing. Hitchcock's preoccupation with pathology, psychology & mother-issues helped encourage psychotherapy in America. Most people in the 60's didn't want to think about what they were doing to their own children by exposing them to violence, sex and traumas. Hitchcock made people look at their own actions & fear the consequences. He knew his own fears & made them ours.

Totally Underrated

[Aly200 · 8/10 · 6 August 2012]

'Marnie' is widely dismissed by critics, but is gradually being accepted now. Tippi Hedren makes her final Hitchcock film appearance in this tale of theft, love and mysterious secrets. Marnie is a compulsive thief and liar who travels from job to job and robbing her employers in order to send money to her mother, Bernice (Louise Latham) in Baltimore. When she is employed by Mark Rutland (Sean Connery, fresh from 'Dr. No', his first Bond film), she soon robs him and tries to flee but is caught by Mark who blackmails her into marriage. Eventually Mark begins to uncover the truth about his new wife and what is wrong with her. This movie is truly gripping as you watch Hedren appear as a heartless thief who disregards other people, but only is doing so for her mother who is a cripple from an old accident. Marnie is only a fragile and troubled woman who really longs for affection (which Mark tries to give her) and acceptance from her mother. Connery is an impressive actor who takes on a role that is so different from the charming, suave man that most audiences know, but here he is charming, sly and deceptive towards finding out Marnie's secrets. It's a fabulous combination and makes for a thrilling ride.

Bond on Blonde

[laika-lives · 6/10 · 18 September 2006]

The charge of misogyny is too often thrown in Hitchcock's direction - it's a lazy tag that refuses to engage with his admittedly complex and occasionally troubling perspective on and relationship with women. The irony is that he was probably responsible for the creation of more memorable, dynamic female characters in classic Hollywood (particularly the fifties) than almost any of his contemporaries (bar Billy Wilder, whose attitude towards women strikes me as equally problematic). However, with 'Marnie', the charges begin to stick. The power imbalance of the central relationship, the pathologising of the female, the sexual violence against women - it reads like a feminist film-theory tick-list.

It isn't as simple as that, of course, but there's a tendency for critics to be a little mealy-mouthed about what is going on in this film. Rape is made justifiable (although it isn't quite justified). The women are all damaged or perverse; Hitchcock claimed Connery's character is just as sick, but the film avoids pathologising him in the same way. There's a thread of something genuinely unpleasant in this film, and in fairness it wouldn't work if there wasn't. The rape scene is the most discomforting scene in all of Hitchcock's work, and my knee-jerk reaction is to wish it wasn't there. However, the way it conveys the horror of the violation without graphically depicting it (and thus turning it into a voyeuristic spectacle) may be the most impressive aspect of the film. This is the only 'classic' Hollywood film I can think of that treats rape seriously, as opposed to as a plot detail. The pity is that the film ultimately neglects the consequences beyond Marnie's immediate reaction.

The film certainly provokes wildly divergent responses, and some pretty complex readings. This isn't just a matter of viewer response - the film encourages it. The bad taste it leaves in many people's mouths (my own included) seems deliberate, and it is for that reason that I give it the benefit of the doubt.

The performances are more easily defensible. Despite a lot of criticism, Tippi Hedren gives a really potent performance as Marnie. At times she wavers, bordering on the hysterical or the arch, but then this a more challenging role than her debut in 'The Birds'. She nails the role in ninety percent of the scenes. Connery seems deliberately miscast, but he's rarely been this interesting since. Again, there are wobbles - he does better by Mark's dark sexuality than by his easy charm (which comes off as patronising) - but it remains a career high point. The scene stealer, though, is Diane Baker as Lil. I've never seen the actress this well cast before - she seems to have been underused all the way through her career. She has the unusual benefit of an actual character arc, rare among Hitchcock's minor characters, although it is rather muffled by her absence at the climax. In her final scenes, we can see her coming to comprehend the depths of Marnie's trauma, and anticipate a more supportive relationship between the two in future. Hitchcock, alas, has no interest in that. I'm always left wanting more of this elfin, mischievous character - and the actress who plays her.

There are some striking sequences in the film - particularly the opening shot - but the fake looking backdrops are a mistake. I've never heard a really good justification for them (you can evoke unreality or superficiality without making your film look so darned tacky). The montage of the horse crashing over the wall may be the single most risible moment in Hitchcock's prolific career.

Marnie is unquestionably successful in one respect - it gets under the viewer's skin like no other film of its period. I can't think of another film that provokes such queasy - yet rapt - attention. My own feelings about it are deeply ambivalent. I don't love it - or like it, really - and yet I can't dismiss it. My opinions about it shift with every viewing - and I keep going back to it.

Stunning and pleasing picture in the best Hitch tradition about an ordinary thief woman and the wealthy man determined to get under surface

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 22 April 2014]

Compelling and charming Hitchcock film in which there is intrigue , luxurious scenarios , suspense , twists and turns . Marnie (Tippie Hedren) is a lovely blonde with a mysterious past ; she is a habitual thief and has serious psychological problems . Marnie isn't at all what she appears , has amnesia and having panic to red color ; then her employer falls in love for her and determined to understand her illness he uncovers his previous life . Later on , Mark (Sean Connery) marries Marnie and attempts to find out what makes her tick . As Mark tries to help her to confront and resolve troubles .

This unsung and really criticized movie at the time of its release contains thrills , tension , suspense , psychoanalysis , romance, unlimited excitement and plenty of plot twists , as usual in Hitchock films . An exceptional Hitchcock film dealing with an exciting intrigue blended with sexual and Freudian theories . Besides , it has a literately witty dialog with distinctive Hitch's touches and writing credits by Jay Presson Allen . Nice acting by the great Sean Connery as current boss who catches Marnie in the theft act and forces her to marry him , though he soon learns the puzzling aspects of Marnie's background . Alfred Hitchcock and screenwriter Jay Presson Allen were allowed to see scenes from Agent 007 and doctor No (1962) when considering Sean Connery for the role of Mark . They liked his charismatic performance so much that they decided to offer him the role even though the obviously Scottish actor did not really fit with their conception of Mark as an "American aristocrat." Tippi Hedren is pretty well as confuse amnesic thief who robs her employers and then changes her identity . Alfred Hitchcock and Tippi Hedren had a major falling-out during the filming and there was a rumor that by the end he directed her through intermediaries . Although Hedren admits the she and Hitchcock's friendship ended during shooting, she denies the rumor that he didn't finish directing the film . Despite the troubles which reportedly took place on set , Tippi Hedren has stated that this is her favorite movie which she has appeared in . Alfred Hitchcock wanted Grace Kelly to make her screen comeback in the title role, but the people of Monaco were not happy with the idea of their princess playing a compulsive thief . Good secondary cast such as Diane Baker as his scheming sister-in-law , Martin Gabel , the tall Alan Napier and Louise Latham, who played Tippi Hedren's mother is in reality only 8 years older. Look for in small characters , almost cameos , to Bruce Dern , Kimberly Beck , Meredith Scott Thomas , Linden Chiles and Mariette Hartley . And , of course , Alfred Hitchcock cameo : Five minutes into the film, in the hotel corridor as Marnie walks by . Colorful as well as glamorous cinematography by Robert Burks , Hitch's habitual . Rousing and intriguing original music by the great Bernard Herrmann , though it was Bernard Herrmann's last score for a Hitchcock film .

Rating : Better than average . Panned at the time of its release and was deemed a misfire ; despite the poor reviews, Marnie turned out to be a moderate box office success for Universal , it grossed $7 million in theatres on a budget of $3 million . The film has since been accepted as an Alfred Hitchcock classic , though resulting to be overlong and confusing as well . Essential and indispensable seeing for Hitch buffs .

Definitely flawed - nonetheless, compelling

[Imnozy · 6/10 · 2 September 2006]

Had I been asked, I would have said that I had watched Marnie before today - but having just caught it on TV, I think at most I have only seen parts of the movie before.

This is a flawed film, with many inconsistencies and unanswered questions. Tippi Hedren, perfect as the incredibly vulnerable and damaged Marnie, hardly puts a foot wrong. Sean Connery as her husband of inconvenience gravitates between compassion and downright thuggery on occasions....I suppose one cannot blame Mr Connery for this, he was struggling in a role that would have confused any other actor in the part. If anyone in the movie is unbelievable, it is Connery - his Scotish accent was totally out of place, as was that of his father (strictly British)in a film set in the US...Diane Baker was the only one who sounded as if she belonged there. Some of the dialogue is so stilted and ridiculous that I found myself smiling in embarrassment - some of the editing is verging on the amateurish.

And yet...and yet....it is compelling viewing in spite of the psychological gobbeldegook, in spite of the fact that it was obvious (to this viewer at least)what had happened in Marnie's childhood, in spite of the fact that the Connery character became less likable as the movie progressed and in spite of the dreadful backdrops and corny dialogue. There still was something of the old Hitchcock magic - he manages to make us care about what happens to these wacky people. That Marnie probably ended up in the nuthouse and Mark more than likely found someone else to manipulate is inconsequential. I am glad that I finally sat and watched Marnie - it was made to entertain - and despite all of the above faults - it achieved its purpose.

"You Freud, Me Jane"

[richardchatten · 9/10 · 20 August 2022]

One these days I'm hoping to find 'Sexual Aberrations of the Criminal Female' in a second-hand bookshop, but so far I'm still looking.

The flawed masterpiece to end all flawed masterpieces; the most mystifying thing about Hitchcock's most controversial film is that people rarely comment on just how good Diane Baker is or ever suggests that Marnie simply batted for the other side (although she wouldn't be the first woman in history who simply preferred horses to people).

Excellent use of rising talent

[redkiwi · 7/10 · 7 July 2000]

Hitch's use of Connery - then after just two Bond films - as the rising talent he was, in this film complements Hendren brilliantly.

Hendren over-acts throughout - deliberately obviously, as this all comes out in the wash in what is a tale of one woman's horror life.

"You Freud! Me Jane!"

[brefane · 3/10 · 29 December 2007]

Preposterous, overlong, sporadically entertaining, and turgid melodrama, that never goes completely camp but not for lack of trying. Some of the dialog and situations are inane with a wooden Sean Connery cast as Mark, a wealthy widower who lives with his father and his dead wife's sister, Lil(Diane Baker). Mark falls for Marnie, a frigid, compulsive thief and liar, who has a thing for horses, is terrified of thunder and lightning, and freaks out over the color red, not just the sight of it, but the word itself. Mark who reads up on the sexual appetites of the female criminal, marries Marnie in hopes of curing her, and treats her like a case study, specimen,and/or patient (though he's not a doctor). He also spends a lot of money paying off the men Marnie stole from in the past. At this point you may wonder what motivates Connery's character? He's remarkably patient, apparently likes a challenge and enjoys unraveling an enigma. Another mystery the film never explains is Lil. Why she lives with Mark and his new bride Marnie, what she does for a living, and what her intentions toward Mark and Marnie are? Lil is an obtrusive plot device, and the character becomes annoying. Hitchcock provides a couple of effective scenes, but overall seems to have lost his touch. The process effects are cheesy, the music over-orchestrated, and the film at 2hrs and 10 minutes seems to take forever to get to the final revelation which is complete with thunder and lightning, and over-the-top performing by Tippi Hedrin and Louise Latham, who plays her mother. The rest of the cast makes little or no impression, and even less sense of their characters. Following North by Northwest (59), Psycho (60), and The Birds (63), Marnie is watchable, if disappointing. 1964 produced 2 daring and interesting films dealing with abnormal female psychology, Sam Fuller's The Naked Kiss and Robert Rossen's Lilith.