One of Hitchcock's best films

Fantastic performances! The directing is just perfect! One of Hitchcock's best.

What a great movie, this one proves why Hitchcock is called as the master of suspense. Also it's great to know how this movie is well directed, everything has a meaning: the voices, the way of some character is looking, the way that they move...

Nearly perfect. Nothing wasted. It's in color BTW.

One of my favourite movie and the best of Hitchcock. This is simply amazing; the intrigue is so good, alongside the acting but the directing. This movie was shot to appear as an all one continuous take even if of course it's not, and that is... wow! Even though this movie is from 1948 and 70 years have passed, is like a fresh movie released this year for how good it is.

If I do not consider part of the first half mostly spent in character chatting each other, everything else is a strong sign of the director mastery of cinematography.

I knew about the gimmick going into this, but found myself not swept up in it while watching--indeed, the skill involved in pulling it off feels like it happens largely off-screen. Instead of calling attention to itself, the technique allows Hitchcock to amplify the tension intrinsic in the story in the most delicious way. Loved Stewart's performance as he subtly catches wise to the scheme, and I was also shocked at how queer they were able to make a movie in this era. I liked this way more than expected.

The OG one-shot film. It’s still a lot of fun and has great fundamentals. Good dialogue, excellent eccentric performances from the entire cast and a lot of tension coming from the contained setting and Hitchock’s cinematic eye. The gay subtext is quite funny and bold for its time, but it doesn’t necessarily add anything to the story or its themes. Not that there’s a lot of depth to be found generally, what it’s trying to say about a superiority complex of the social elites isn’t very well fleshed out. Instead, this is driven by the emotion and its presentation choices. It’s pretty obvious where the cuts are, however they’re well executed and seamless (I only noticed some inconsistent colour timing, but that’s a negligible nitpick). It also shouldn’t be overlooked how good the blocking and lighting are, especially considering how experimental this was for its time. You can tell they put a lot of thought into every detail, every pause in Jimmy Stewart’s performance feels so meticulous and it adds that much more tension.

8.5/10

I really wanted to like this movie but it just doesn’t hold up. I’m a huge Jimmy Stewart fan but it didn’t help.

"I hope so. I hope with all of my heart that I'm crazy."

Brilliant. I had high hopes for this movie and they were all exceeded. It was interesting to watch while keeping in mind that it was shot to look like it was all one continuous take. [spoiler]I also felt that it shows us an insight into Brandon's chracter to watch the steely composure he had from the start dwindle away to nothing as the story progresses.[/spoiler]

Definitely not my favorite Hitchcock movie

It's amazing watching the movies that inspired all the ones that came after it. The continuous shot illusion here is flawed yes, but obviously genius for the time. The performances and the tension keep your eyes glued to the screen.

It's also interesting to see how so many of the villains in Hitchcock's movies are queer coded - at the time that came from his fascination with the twisted, but he couldn't have predicted that these villains would make the heroes of his stories incredibly dull in comparison - that is especially obvious in this film. Now, funnily enough, Hollywood is obsessed with making stories about villains, we've become the celebrated protagonists.

"Rope" came pretty close to becoming the first one-shot film in history. It's edited to look as if it was made of five continuous shots of 20 minutes each, with five additional "disguised" cuts in between each segment to get around the technical limitations of film reels (10 minutes for shooting, 20 minutes for projecting in theaters). Hitchcock's idea was to adapt a theatre piece into a film, following the actors through the set without interrupting the action. Even though transitions might look a bit clunky now, the care that went into choreographing camerawork to track each movement on stage is undeniable.

Despite the single set and limited cast, the film never gets monotonous thanks to its crackling dialogue, black humor, and brilliant direction. It doesn't matter if it takes two minutes to figure out how the plot will unfold; it's more about the characters rather than the "perfect murder".
I seem to have an issue with Farley Granger's acting, but the rest of the cast works well, in particular Dall and Stewart.

2 whole words.
The Homoeroticism