A tale that was originally about moral ambiguity and the blending of two personalities has been reduced to a one dimensional, predictable and frankly ridiculous (out of control merry go round? really?) film. Not only is the story boring, but the characters lack depth or likeability. Hitchcock completely missed the entire point of Strangers On A Train - a disturbing yet skilful novel that once stressed the thin line between good and evil is reduced to a typical good vs evil bore that isn't ambitious in the slightest. The thing that bothered me the most was definitely the characterisation of the protagonist, Guy. From the beginning he's a kind, normal tennis player who would never consider murder. He's a stereotypical "nice guy", who gets everything he wants at the end of the film, and appears to suffer no physical or mental damage from the events that have happened to him. He has no character development at all, no real depth, and his actions are predictable as hell. Everything that made him an interesting character in the original novel has been destroyed. His original career in architecture, for example, which he believes brings him closer to God, was replaced by bloody tennis. Tennis? How does that contribute to the plot at all? His breakdown throughout the novel by Bruno that leads Guy to murder and eventually ruins his life, too, is shattered. The Guy in Hitchcock's movie doesn't resemble the conflicted, messed up character shown in Highsmith's novel and is a complete disappointment.Bruno, too, lacks the obsessive, disgusting nature shown in the novel. No, he is just yet another villain who only cares about murder and would do anything to have it. Anne, while sweet and witty, does not have the strong mindedness that Highsmith's character did. Other characters were just there as plot devices, and their relationships were empty.The love/hate relationship between Bruno and Guy that is an extremely important aspect of Strangers On A Train is replaced by an indifference between both characters. There is no real chemistry between them, and no clear build up of tension that leads to the fight on the merry go round at the end of the film. "Bruno is using Guy, and Guy doesn't want to be used". This is as far as Hitchcock will take their relationship - he completely ignores the way Bruno is obsessed with Guy or that Guy secretly feels he and Bruno are the same person. The original novel clearly raised a moral debate that Hitchcock didn't want to explore The film introduces important plot points without ever dealing with them. Why mirror Bruno and Guy in the first place if you're going to present them as completely different people? What is the point of introducing Bruno's father if Guy isn't going to kill him anyway, and is going to stick to his guns the entire time? In conclusion, this film has no real complexity and I'm sure that anyone who praises it lacks understanding of the point of the original novel. On its own it's a mediocre thriller with stereotypical characters and a better ending, but when compared with the true ambiguity and brilliance of the original novel, it falls flat. A tale of insanity, murder, moral ambiguity and guilt deserves much better than this

Hitchcock gave his best to turn this not so great story into great movie. Acting is very good, especially Robert walker who played his role to perfection. Directing is great and movie had Best Cinematography Oscar nomination. Some scenes are work of genius. Scene when Walker pops balloon with cigarette, heads turning left and right in ridiculous pace while only Walker's head is still fixating our main character, scream in the tunnel, party choking scene, those are just some of moments that will definitely carve into your memory. Perfect Hitchcock atmosphere, but although movie presents its story strongly from the beginning to the end, story itself is, in my opinion, lousy developed. Plot idea is fantastic, but in second part of the movie main characters start to draw illogical moves that are incompatible with basic plot. What looked like beginning of great mystery thriller suddenly turns into psychological drama. Unexpected and unwanted direction of story that begins to lose its meaning, but drama opens the door for actors to show their skills so great directing and acting still cover for screenplay flaws. But, in third part of the movie things go south and movie becomes crime action. It had potential to end with some awesome mindfak twist (I had few ideas), but instead we got dumb, illogical and unconvincing denouement that flushes this potential masterpiece down to mediocre crime story. Still, six would do injustice to fantastic camera, directing and first part of the movie, so I have to compromise and rate it8/10

After four box-office failures and with the dawn of a new decade, there must have been some pressure on Hitchcock to deliver a hit again. That he did, and then some with this tour-de-force which in fact set the standard for the rest of the decade where he consistently delivered great movies and consolidated his reputation as the Master of Suspense.It helps of course when the source material is good, this time from a writer of the calibre of Patricia Highsmith and while Raymond Chandler may not have contributed too much for his co-screenplay credit, this movie has a particular drive and energy which had certainly been lacking in his recent movies. It may have lacked A-list acting talent but Farley Granger and in particular Robert Walker step up admirably with memorable performances so good you can't imagine anyone else in their places.The idea of twin murders is a delicious one which holds the movie together all the way through particularly after Walker's Bruno casts the first stone with the murder of Granger's loose, grasping but hardly deserving wife. The extended scene of his stalking her at a night-time fun fair culminating in a brilliantly rendered strangulation reflected in the victim's own detached spectacles is just one of many magisterial flourishes from the Master but there's much more such as the shot of Bruno gazing single-mindedly at Granger's Guy Haines playing a tennis match while everyone else is following the ball going back and forth over the net, the later cross-cutting of Bruno striving to retrieve Guy's lighter which he's accidentally dropped down a drain en-route to planting it at the murder scene to frame him contrasted with Guy frantically trying to win his tennis match and of course the suitably dramatic climax aboard (and under!) a crazily out of control merry-go-round.As stated, Walker is superb as the suave but deranged Bruno, with his flamboyantly monogrammed tie-pin and floral dressing gown bringing a homo-erotic edge to proceedings while Granger is almost as good as the innocent caught up in his nemesis's machinations and yet bearing guilt for getting what in his secret heart he really wanted. There's solid support too from Ruth Roman as Haines' new love, the ever-dependable Leo G Carroll as her senator father and perhaps surprisingly Hitchcock's own daughter as Roman's younger sister who bears a striking resemblance to Haines' bespectacled doomed wife.From the introductory criss-crossing of feet and railway lines to that mad smash-up finish at the carnival this is the ultimate cinematic white-knuckle ride.

When examining the merits of Alfred Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", it is clear that the Master of Suspense crafted another winner. What was remarkable to me, however, was how he did it with such a simple plot line...instead creating the suspense from one of the creepiest characters in film history.For a basic plot summary, "Strangers on a Train" sees two men meet up with each other on a random train ride. Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is a young tennis pro who desperately wants a divorce from his vindictive wife. Bruno Antony (Robert Walker) is suffocating under the harsh discipline of is father. When Bruno brings up the thought of a "criss-cross" murder swap to solve both their problems, the film has its fuel.In terms of overall plot, the goings are relatively simple here. This is pretty much par for the course with Hitch, as (with a few exceptions) his films' plots are actually pretty standard and containing the tried-and-true MacGuffins he has become famous for (in this case it is a lighter from the scene of a crime).What makes this film really stand out and engage the viewer, then, is the character of Bruno and subsequent acting job by Walker. From the very beginning, audiences understand how crazy of a man Bruno is, and his character-development only continues the journey down that rabbit hole as the film progresses. He is easily one of the spookiest characters ever put to film.Thus, "Strangers on a Train" is a very good Hitchcock effort. It contains the typical MacGuffin plot device, some very inventive camera work, and a villainous character who just may keep you up at night. Watch with confidence knowing it will captivate you from beginning to end.