"Shadow of a Doubt" was the first truly American film by Alfred Hitchcock. His previous films in Hollywood had strong overtones of being in a British setting but that all changed after 1943 with the release of "Shadow of a Doubt." A psychopathic killer who is wanted in connection with a series of brutal killings, flees his home city and travels many miles to a small town where his relatives live. He attempts to conceal his real demeanour with that of being "the charming and easygoing long lost uncle." He maintains this facade until his niece (Teresa Wright) suspects her uncle is not quite what he claims to be. There soon develops a game of cat and mouse between uncle and niece as her suspicions lead to her distancing herself from him and his smokescreen gradually evaporating as a result. The scene where Wright looks up some old newspaper articles at the local library, is a major development in her discovering what her uncle really is. Joseph Cotton was usually cast as the decent and ordinary everyday kind of character. When I first discovered he played a killer in a Hitchcock movie, I had slight reservations as to his suitability and credibility. Boy was I wrong! The actor makes for a creepy and sinister murderer who shows no remorse for what he has done. Hitchcock got precisely the right of performance from Joseph Cotton, there is nothing theatrical or superficial about it. Teresa Wright does a good job in projecting both vulnerability and determination. It is quite disturbing how the rest of the family are completely unaware of what is happening during the film. To them, Cotton is just a kind and ordinary person, like the sort of person you pass in the street. Hitchcock's creative juices were in full flow in "Shadow of a Doubt."

Uncle Charlie is a killer on the loose, who stays with his sister's family in a peaceful suburban home in an attempt to hide from police. Mystery and intrigue is maintained throughout as we question whether Uncle Charlie is a suspect, while the latter half creates suspense by putting Niece Charlie in danger, as she begins to uncover the truth. The film is masterfully shot - so well in fact, that it seems to have blinded audiences to the plot holes.First, one of the early clues involves the Uncle ripping out a newspaper article regarding the murderers deeds. But he had no need to do that, as the article never tied him to the murders in any way. In fact, only by ripping it out did it become a clue that could be used against him - a cheap narrative tool.Second, Uncle gives Niece a ring with the initials of a deceased engraved on it. This is a guy who has $40k to open a bank account with, do you think he would risk passing on evidence like that instead of simply buying a new ring? Of course not. Third, when the only other suspect in the case is killed, he is labelled the guilty party and case closed. This makes no sense whatsoever. If he was guilty, then Uncle would be innocent. If he wasn't guilty, then Uncle would still be under investigation. There are only two logical paths here and the film takes neither.Fourth, the film keeps hinting at some "special" connection between the two Charlies - they share the same names, and an early coincidence makes Niece wonder if they are telepathic. But this connection runs exactly nowhere and one wonders why it was ever introduced. (The romantic subplot between Niece and Detective is also irrelevant, except to try and provide a happy ending).With all this "doubt" about, it would have at least been nice to have a twist ending (hell, I'm sure they could have made the family friend Herbert the real killer - they could have at least set up a few more suspects!), but alas, it will not surprise you in any way.An interesting aside are the quirky conversations the father and Herbert have about how to execute 'the perfect murder'. In a career dedicated to the idea, Hitch must have had many of these conversations himself, and we see a few fruits of those conversations towards the end of the film. Instead of saving the best til last however, the climax on the train was the least creative of all. The user Jason in these comments said it perfectly, "A good ending involving a villain failing is supposed to happen because of the villain's Achilles's heel. Not a Deus ex Machina!"Although 'Shadow of a Doubt' is not his original story, I'm disappointed to learn Thornton Wilder was one three screenwriters, for his novel 'The Bridge of San Luis Rey' is excellent.

I've seen just over half of his films (around 25 or 30) so I know my fair share of some of his greatest films, and let me tell you this one sure was another!I noticed from the very start I was already hooked and wanted to know more about this mysterious man we see who is "Uncle Charlie".I have a really bad problem with quite a few of Hitch's films, films like "Topaz","Rebecca", "Marnie", "Spellbound" or even "Notorious" I felt were just way too slow, nothing interesting enough happens throughout to keep you interested, even the ending of those films sort of left me with the thought like "Okay? that's it?".This film grabbed my attention from the very start and kept me until the end, although I will say this though, I thought the first half of the film was greatly superior to the last half, the build up and pace of the first half felt like it was setting up for maybe a bit of a quicker more larger event in the last half I suppose, either way I did find myself feeling like the movie was beginning to feel draggy towards the end, that is the one and only problem which keeps this movie from being a perfect 10 out of 10. The film would be seriously perfect if it was around 1 Hour and 20 minutes instead of almost 2 hours long (lots of things in the last half could have been cut down) The dialogue was great as well, most from what "Uncle Charlie" has to say. One other final thing I would like to say is that the CAMERA WORK is PHENOMENAL, there are tons of interesting shots and they all feel like a lot of thought was put into each angle and shot, editing was great, and you really get a sense of what it was like back in those days.This is definitely in Hitchcock's top 10 films IMO, but films like Vertigo, Psycho, Rear Window, Dial M For Murder are all better than this one for sure

This movie held my interest, but by the end I saw so many plot holes and implausibilities that it diminished my enjoyment of it. I won't include any spoilers, although some of this won't make complete sense unless you've seen the movie. Joseph Cotten's character, "Uncle Charlie," goes to spend time with his sister's family, apparently to get away from a couple of guys who are trying to hunt him down (why, is not immediately apparent). The drama begins when Charlie tries to get rid of a newspaper page containing a story about him. Problem is, only he knew it was about him. Nobody else would have connected it with him, and he must have known that. Two central characters then concoct an elaborate scheme, involving posing as reporters, to get a photograph of his face, when they could have just set up across the street with a telephoto lens (which I'm pretty sure they had circa 1940). For that matter, they could've simply walked up to him as soon as he came out the front door. There was no reason for the magazine scheme, except as a plot device, that leads to one of the main characters implausibly falling head over heels in love, with further complications ensuing. Eventually we learn that the plot involves some murders. At the end, everybody seems happy to leave things as they are, because the murderer is dead, but it would not have been that simple. There would have been issues to resolve about what was stolen from the victims. No honest police officer would just walk away and leave things as they stood, knowing about those outstanding issues. Well directed, with some nice camera work, and generally well acted. The kids are a little stiff, unsurprisingly, though Henry Travers is excellent in his supporting role as Joseph Newton. But the plot lets this movie down.