Merolliv
I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.
Bea Swanson
This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.
Calum Hutton
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
JohnHowardReid
A British International Picture. Not copyrighted in the U.S.A. No recorded New York opening. U.S. release through Powers Pictures: 27 March 1932. U.K. release through Wardour: December 1931. 92 minutes. Cut to 83 minutes in the U.S.A. SYNOPSIS: A dull Britisher and his lovely blonde wife embark on a world cruise. (Available on very good Madacy or Laserlight DVDs).COMMENT: Hitchcock is right about Henry Kendall. Not only woefully miscast, but he lets the film down badly in just about every scene by his artificial grimacing and stagey posturing. Fortunately, the other players are both more apt and more inspiring. Betty Amann a delicious creature, vamping the hero in style as a princess on the loose; Joan Barry makes a beguiling blonde and Percy Marmont a quieter and more reflective Brian Aherne. Hitchcock feels that the story was strong, and that it was let down solely by the casting of Henry Kendall. However, it seems to me that the story was deliberately constructed to take advantage of B.I.P.'s considerable library of stock footage. Certainly there is more newsreel, travelogue and old documentary clips in Rich and Strange than in all of Hitchcock's subsequent movies combined! Of necessity, the editing is often jerky. Jump cuts abound. Much of the material dates from the silent era and moves too fast at sound speed. So what does the master do, but establish a staccato editing style from the very beginning! Yes, Rich and Strange is often quite imaginatively cut and directed. And the story is sufficiently off-beat to carry the audience through the episodic plot. Unfortunately, the story itself carries little conviction and, as stated, is further undermined by the custardly Kendall. All the same, Rich and Strange is not only must viewing for Hitchcock fans, but it offers a certain novelty value for all connoisseurs.OTHER VIEWS: The critics were not overly cordial. They felt the characterizations weren't sufficiently convincing. They were right about Henry Kendall, who was all wrong for the part. All the other players were quite good, but a stronger cast — in the box-office sense — would certainly have made the picture more successful. I liked the movie. Even with its faults, it deserved a greater success. — Alfred Hitchcock.
Ilpo Hirvonen
An expectation cast by the later half of Hitchcock's oeuvre may not do justice to "Rich and Strange" (1931), but when seen in the context of Hitchcock's early sound films it really sticks out for the better. In fact, I would say it is the best of them. In addition to critical treatises on marriage, gender and sexuality, Hitchcock studies one of his favorite themes of a man who yearns for something different and thus practically invites chaos to his life which otherwise would be in perfect order. This perfect order of harmonious dimensions is portrayed in the opening dolly shot of the protagonist's dull office life. Then, however, we see that he doesn't quite fit this seeming order, revealing distress beneath, as he cannot open up his umbrella with the others. The story begins when he and his wife, bored with their mundane life, hear of an early inheritance which leads them to a trip round the world. Unlike in "The 39 Steps" (1935) or "Saboteur" (1942), here the abundance of settings doesn't equal exciting adventure, although quite a fast pace, but a fragmentary episode-like structure and a ground for the theme of alienation. These may be among the reasons why "Rich and Strange" was back in the day so poorly received, but, nonetheless, has later been commended by several critics (Truffaut, Spoto) as well as favored by the master himself. In the essence of the film's moral (which may be a word too puny for Hitchcock's level of mastery) is that the main couple yearn for excitement and adventure, but instead of enriching, life-enhancing experiences, go through severe disillusionment. This disillusionment, however, doesn't affect their life for better or worse. It remains the same. Donald Spoto has written that it is in these moments of disillusionment where lies the main point of the film: the acceptance for the extremes of life and death as they are. In comparison to "The Skin Game" (1931), which Hitchcock made just before this, "Rich and Strange" is much more original and cinematic. The same happened with "Murder!" (1930) which is far more superior than its theatrical predecessor "Juno and the Paycock" (1929). But what really makes "Rich and Strange" so special, and a fascinating part of Hitchcock's oeuvre, is its absurdity. This absurdity is not only gained from story nor humor but, above all, from their odd execution. The absurdity emerges from the film's unique, strange atmosphere. This atmosphere must be experienced to be understood and it is eternally guarded by the magical aura of the film given to it by early sound cinema.
Syl
If you love Sir Alfred Hitchcock's films, you might be surprised by this unusual film. There is no gore or mystery but its rich and strange in other ways. This film is about an attractive British couple in London, England who inherit some money from a relative. They board a ship and travel to the Far East. Aboard the ship, they meet a delightful funny spinster played by Elsie Randolph. Aboard ship is a German princess who is not what appears to be. The cast is first rate with mostly actors from the theater. Hitchcock was smart to cast experienced actors for his films in England. This film is more like an early romantic comedy and coming from Hitchcock that's strange indeed.
Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman)
He was only 31 when he made this, another exercise in style and experimental and innovative in its approach to a marriage that is sinking into boredom and predictability.Highly enjoyable to this die-hard Hitchcock fan, it has a little of everything: humour, escape from the mundane, unexpected windfalls changing one's life and not necessarily for the better, extra marital affairs and little peeks at life as seen through the eyes of the protagonists.No big 2X4's but many subtleties such as the appealing discreet affair between Emily and the commander and the blatant in your face affair conducted by Fred, her husband, and the princess.Some dark bits as well, signalling Hitch's lasting fascination with the macabre, exemplified by the treatment of a pet cat.One amusing bit has some characters marching around the deck, the first all female and I do believe Hitch's cameo has him in the second all male appearance being hauled around by two athletic types.Hitch never disappoints me.6 out of 10.
