Critics’ reviews

Rope (1948)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 64: 2 positive, 5 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Rope

64
Positive
2
Mixed
5
Negative
1

The reviews lean towards a mixed assessment of Rope, with praise clustering around Hitchcock’s camera movement, long takes and staging. Even the less enthusiastic accounts find the technique worth discussing, though they disagree about how much it contributes to the drama. James Stewart’s performance draws praise from both Variety and Eye for Film, while Variety also commends John Dall and Farley Granger. No performance attracts the same reservations as the film’s experimental approach.

The central divide is over whether that approach sustains moral tension or becomes a distraction. Slant Magazine finds that the camera keeps the ethical consequences of violence in view; Empire regards the experiment as ragged and distracting. Variety offers the sharpest rejection, finding the subject less entertaining than the technique deserves. The spread is wide, but the evidence has limits: three of the eight entries lack accessible verdicts, so the apparent balance needs treating with care.

Slant Magazine
19 June 2006 · ★★★½/4 · Fernando F. Croce
88

Croce finds the film morally complex and sees its treatment of violence and repression as more than a simple exercise in shock. He praises how the mobile camera and long takes keep the ethical consequences in view.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
4 September 1948 · John McCarten
64*

The issue lists “Rope” among the films reviewed in “The Current Cinema,” but the review’s verdict is not visible. The accessible page provides no praise or criticism to single out.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
27 August 1948
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but its text is inaccessible. The available material does not reveal the critic’s verdict or specific praise.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· GA
64*

The accessible metadata characterizes the film as one of Hitchcock’s more experimental works. The critic’s overall verdict and specific praise or complaints are not available in the page text.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · David Parkinson
60*

The critic sees the film as a ragged, distracting experiment, though one worth watching for Hitchcock collectors. He singles out its hints of the perversity that would characterize Hitchcock’s later films.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · Robyn Karney
60

Karney finds the film more cerebral experiment than suspenseful Hitchcock entertainment. The continuous long takes are singled out as its most interesting feature today.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1947 · Variety Staff
35*

The review finds the subject less entertaining than Hitchcock’s camera and staging techniques deserve. It praises James Stewart’s commanding performance and notes the strong work of John Dall and Farley Granger.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
13 January 2009 · Jennie Kermode
85*

Kermode regards the film as a Hitchcock masterpiece, while noting that its immaculate style leaves little room for emotion until the ending. She particularly praises the camera work and James Stewart’s performance as Rupert.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate