Number Seventeen (1932)

Such a frustrating disappointment

Overrated

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

'Number Seventeen' is not so classic Hitchcock, but it has its moments and there are plenty of those. The Hitchcockian style of huumor and mystery is all there. Although occasionally out of balance with comedic overtones following with dark shadowy play, the fast pace of the movie and never ending twists and surprises manage to keep the film on track. Hitchcock himself detested the movie and even called it as one of his worst movies, 'Number Seventeen' is still masterful piece of filmmaking. Entertaining edge on your seat ride from beginning to end. The chase scene with train and bus is amazing that one can even call it groundbreaking action film making.

The reason to enjoy watching this film is to understand what a great director was doing to hone his craft when so many tools of the trade had yet to be developed. In 1932, many, if not most movies were still silent. Cameras, lights and labs were a nightmare. Storytelling was still trying to embrace the new medium of sound.Yes, Hitchcock was doing a poor (by today's standards) attempt at a craft he ultimately raised to genius level. Watch this film and marvel at what was accomplished eighty-five years ago and all the technology and techniques that needed to be invented over the decades ahead. Enjoy it for what it is and what it is not.The film is amazing! "Number 17" gets a number 8 from me.

This is a rather creaky early sound effort by Alfred Hitchcock, which does not entirely succeed, though it has excellent moments. The first half of the film is set entirely inside an empty old house beside a railway track at night. It is that house which is 'Number Seventeen'. Hitchcock tries desperately to make everything melodramatic, and often succeeds, but he is straining hard. None of the actors is particularly good, and some of them are actually bad. (None are remembered today.) The story is flimsy, the incidents unbelievable, and the whole thing is so obviously contrived that if Hitchcock were not continually scrambling to keep our attention (like a dog which sits in front of the TV to make us notice her), we might well switch off. There is a famous night chase scene between a hijacked Greenline bus and a steam train towards the south coast. (There is no traffic!) This is constructed by intercutting lots of shots of models with real size scenes. The fist fight scenes are wholly unconvincing, and some of the worst ever shot. This is a disappointing early Hitchcock film, but one which Hitchcock enthusiasts will nevertheless want to see because it does contain moments and ideas scattered like plums in a pudding, and one can savour those.

We're all familiar with an 'old dark house' mystery, but this one takes place in a row house in London that is for sale. In fact, it looks like it has been vacant for years; lots of cobwebs and dust, broken banisters, a corpse or two and expressionist shadows abound. There is also a peculiar cockney with a very pronounced accent loitering about on the second floor who becomes an intricate part of the story - and he gets top billing. His name is Leon M. Lion, and he is also the producer!You have to pay close attention because you are left in the dark very often and, I must confess, this is the second time I saw this film. Didn't think I grasped it the first time. There's lots of confusion regarding identities, and most of the characters are not what they seem. Sometimes the good guys are really bad guys, and vice versa. The plot involves a meeting among crooks regarding a stolen necklace, and Scotland Yard's attempts to intervene.This picture has been unfairly maligned on the website and the IMDb rating, I feel, is unfair. It is an absorbing story which takes place almost entirely on the dimly-lit second floor landing of the vacant house. And, apparently, it is not as vacant as advertised, as several people of questionable intent skulk about. I say give it a chance. It lacks the clarity of later Hitchcock films but still a characteristic example of the work of the Master of Suspense.