Rope (1948) - Great Concept but a Sluggish Execution

I recently read about Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, two University of Chicago students who decided to commit the perfect murder. They meticulously planned and killed a random person and thought they would get away with it. Alfred Hitchcock decided to turn a play off the event into a film called Rope.

It film begins with two young, affluent men killing a mutual friend and stuffing his body in a chest. They then have a dinner party with the friend's parents and friends, while the corpse is literally stuffed under where they serve the food. Can they get away with it and ditch the body after everyone leaves? 

The movie does the entire movie in 'one shot' where they subtly patched together a few long shots. It's essentially a play enacted on screen, so it is critical the acting. were fascinated by the idea of committing "the perfect crime".  The entire film takes place in the apartment, in particular the living room where the party is being held. The movie hinges on the two murderers trying to keep it secret - one is hanging on by the fringes while the other is overly confident and almost giving guests hints to what they did. 

Does it work? Well, it's all about the cast, the script, and the ending. 

The cast - John Dall owns this movie. He plays the confident killer with an aura of composure and self-assurance that makes him almost (dare I say) likable. Farley Granger, as the other murderer, plays the more wimpy and nervous of the two, and he doesn't impress nearly as well. You can see him acting like he's guilty. James Stewart's role is to immediately be suspicious of the two, and it comes across as incredibly forced. To me, this takes the viewer out of the movie, because you know he's going to figure it out, and he's going to accuse them.

The script - It moves fast enough, but it all hinges on the last five minutes. We know Stewart will find out, but what will he do when he finds out? What will the killers do?

The ending -Without giving it away, the whole thing ends with a speech. It's not a bad speech, but you kind of knew all along this was how it was going to conclude.

A random stranger's opinion - It's a product of its time. Back in the late forties, this was surely a Sixth Sense/Seven type of flick, one that shocked audiences with its direction and themes. It's a worthwhile watch for that, but it's hardly shocking in today's cinema.  It's certainly worth watching for Hitchcock's impressive direction.

Grade: B-