MARNIE is a psychological thriller as a kind of imbalance in relations of human nature, the past and the future. The two characters, one is provocative and other is seductive, are engaged in a dangerous game woven of love, passion and madness. It is based on the 1961 novel of the same name by Winston Graham.Marnie is a a compulsive thief who cannot stand to be touched by any man. Her new boss, Mark, is, in a strange way, fascinated by her behavior, to such an extent that he blackmails her into marriage when he stumbles onto her breaking into his safe. A dangerous and passionate game, based on a dark past and an uncertain future, can begin...Hitchcock's psycho-physical game, which is full of symbolism, is again very shocking. A lack of love and the impossibility of expressing the same, with constant disguise and deception, bring enough amount of intrigue. A strong sexual desire and frigid wife are kind of bonuses in this story.What's the problem with this film?I think, a serious dose of obsession, with the two main characters, which fully corresponds to their mysterious psyche is too sweet, and sticky for a psychological thriller. This is especially felt in acting. Simply, Hitchcock's thematic compactness is lost and psychological game becomes a bit tiresome to watch.There is of course, "Spellbound", as a kind of warning.Tippi Hedren as Margaret "Marnie" Edgar is a young woman who constantly suffers from nightmares, afraid of thunder and one color. A kleptomaniac is not aware of causes of her behavior and her fears. So the best. However, a thief becomes prey. Sean Connery as Mark Rutland is a widower, a zoologist and hunter at the same time. He is not a perfect man, regardless of his appearance and "mission". He is a man, who likes challenges in a form of attractive woman with serious psychological problems, who somewhere in her depths cries out for his help. Diane Baker as Lil Mainwaring is Mark's former sister-in-law, who will try to bring a discomfort into a romance, which practically not exist. Louise Latham as Bernice Edgar is a distant cold and mysterious mother. She is a wound that needs to be cleaned.I will repeat one of my sentence. I have a feeling that I watched pretty good movie where something's wrong.

When watching Alfred Hitchcock's "Marnie", one gets the sense that there is much more that went on in the novel it was based on, almost as if Hitch made a lot of excises or additions to the original script (I'm not positive on this...only a guess). As a result, the overall narrative is a bit disjointed in places and sparse in others. Luckily, the acting and themes in the movie are solid enough to make it a very interesting picture to watch.For a basic plot summary, "Marnie" focuses on Marnie Edgar (Tippi Hedron), a compulsive liar/thief who eventually gets caught by Mark Rutland (Sean Connery). In trying to help Marnie discover why she is so psychologically disturbed, Mark uncovers a secret about Marnie's mother (played by Louise Latham) that must be revealed before any true progress can be made.In terms of overall execution, this film is a little lacking, especially considering the usual Hitchcock standard. Not until the last 20 minutes or so do you really get 100% sucked into what is transpiring. Before that, it is a collection of "fits and starts".Fortunately, the themes (obsession, childhood trauma, sexual tension, etc.) of "Marnie" are fascinating enough to keep you watching without getting bored. Just when you think that Marnie can't do anything crazier or be any stranger, she usually does just that.Thus, I consider "Marnie" a Hitchcock success largely in part due to the source material (i.e. it would be tough to really screw this one up). For roughly an hour and 45 minutes of the movie, I was set on a three-star rating. The final scenes, however, easily are the most compelling and bump it up a full star.

Mark (Sean Connery) blackmails a kleptomaniac into marrying him, and then not only forces himself on her, but also forces her to confront her past, and learn why she is so terrified of the colour red.Marnie, the character, is damaged goods.Marnie, the film, is damaged goods also.It's a character-driven story, but every character is either unlikeable, or uninvolving. Marnie is a good, but not *great* Hitchcock flick, and, especially at that time, coming right after things like Psycho, and The Birds, and North By Northwest, and Vertigo, good wasn't good enough. A lot of fans probably were not expecting a more low key, subtle, psychological romance thriller, which is what we got with Marnie. No elaborate chases on My. Rushmore, no killer with split personalities. It was too much of a departure for some. While it is a beautiful looking, well filmed effort (excluding some atrocious backdrops, which occasionally look like a painting one might see in a dentist's office) its pacing also lags, and Sean Connery (in a hideous looking hairpiece) is just simply there. He's not bad here, but he seems to be miscast to me, like he was given the role in hopes plot a James Bond/ Hitchcock crossover success.Marnie is still worthwhile, but not a film I am in any hurry to rewatch, and not a good starting point for someone not already a fan of Hitchcock.

This is the point at which I feel Hitchcock begins to lose his touch a bit, at least for the films I seen so far. MARNIE is somewhat of a departure in the type of film he had made his name doing, but even so, it contains themes that resonated through his body of work. The story is about Marnie (Tippi Hedren), a compulsive thief and liar who ends up marrying a man she robs. This was an intriguing premise, to say the least, and provided the opportunity for Tippi Hedren to play a more complex character than she had in THE BIRDS, but I don't think she was quite up to the task. Sean Connery was appropriately dashing in his role as Mark, the man she ends up falling for, but he didn't really have that much chemistry with Hedren, in my opinion. For me, there were individual moments or flashes of brilliance that worked rather than the film as a whole. In particular, the opening sequence where we are introduced to Marnie was well-done, and the scene where she robs Mark's company was the closest the film ever came to capturing the suspense for which Hitchcock is so well-known. The rest of it was a mixed bag. Some of the psychological elements were interesting by themselves, and in a few scenes, were well-utilized. However, the sledgehammer approach to Freudian themes and associations removed a lot of the mystique. It also didn't help that the explanation for Marnie's particular idiosyncrasies at the end was rather unsatisfying. Still, there were a number of things I did like. Tippi Hedren played cold and calculating rather well. Bernard Herrmann's score and main theme was very romantic and fit the character of Marnie. The film was also handsomely photographed, had great sets and costumes, and made good use of color. Overall, though, I feel like MARNIE has some poor pacing, is a little too long, and has as much trouble identifying what it wants to be as Marnie herself. Before I watched this, I took a look at the theatrical trailer, and even Hitchcock had difficulty (it seems) really pinning down what the film was (settling on 'sex mystery'). Certainly one of Hitchcock's lesser efforts, it still has some interesting parts despite the unevenness of it all.