Strangers On A Train Might Not Be Hitchcock's Best Movie, But It's My Favorite. Here's Why.

If you were to ask somebody what the best Alfred Hitchcock movie was, they'd likely say something along the lines of Psycho, Vertigo, or Rear Window…and I’d agree.

But “best” doesn't necessarily mean my “favorite,” and if we're talking about that, then I've narrowed it down to two, those being Shadow of a Doubt, which was also Hitchcock's favorite, and Strangers on a Train. Today, I want to talk about the latter.

Now, as somebody who has watched a lot of Hitchcock movies, I can tell you that Strangers on a Train is great in all of the ways that I love a Hitchcock movie to be, and for a number of reasons. Here are just a few.

Firstly, It Has One Of Hitchcock’s Creepiest Villains

Back when there were a number of Hitchcock movies still on Netflix (which, unfortunately, is not the case any longer), I mentioned his penultimate film, Frenzy, which is an under-appreciated gem, and also one of his darkest stories. The film deals with a serial rapist and killer named Bob Rusk (Barry Foster) who strangles people with a necktie, and in a lot of ways, this is Hitchcock’s creepiest villain.

However, I think one villain might have him beat, and that’s Bruno Antony, played by Robert Walker in Strangers. What makes Bruno a creepier villain than Rusk is the fact that it seems like he doesn’t understand why murder is wrong. In fact, his own father, who Bruno wants murdered, says himself that he thinks his son needs to be evaluated, while his mother poo-poos the idea, believing that Bruno is just misunderstood. The viewer can clearly see that, no, Dad is right. Something is seriously wrong with this man.

The story is based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith (the author of the Ripley series–which spawned one of my favorite movies, The Talented Mr. Ripley) and it concerns a tennis player (Farley Granger) who just so happens to meet a stranger on a train. Now, whether the meeting was a matter of happenstance or planned by Bruno is not entirely clear, but it certainly seems like Bruno manufactured the meeting because he seems to know an awful lot about our protagonist.

What’s Bruno’s big plan? Well, it’s that he’ll kill the protagonist’s wife, if our protagonist will kill Bruno’s father in exchange so that nobody can trace a motive back to either man. Yep. Bruno’s a total creepazoid, and more so because it seems like he doesn’t even realize it.

It’s Also One Of Hitchcock’s Most Risque Films

Hitchcock never really shied away from taboo topics like sex or murder (taboo in his period, anyway). So, when Psycho came out in 1960, I’m sure it must have been incredibly shocking for people at the time (the movie, Hitchcock, starring Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren does a good job of showing this). I mean, hell, Psycho is still kind of shocking today when thinking about what the famed director got away with at the time.

However, I think even more impressive is what Hitchcock was able to get away with in 1951 with Strangers on a Train, because even though we don’t get a steamy (and stabby) shower scene with Janet Leigh, we do get some implications that I’m pretty sure any adult could ascertain if they read between the lines. For example, that tennis player I mentioned earlier is named Guy Haines, and he hates his current wife, Miriam (Kasey Rogers) since she’s essentially making a cuckold out of him.

It’s the WAY she’s been cheating on him that is still kind of impressive, even today. For instance, she’s open about having another man’s baby, and the fact that nobody is going to believe that her husband isn’t the actual father. Even more shocking (for the time) is that in one scene, she’s going off with two men at a carnival, and it’s pretty clear that she’s been engaging in threesomes with them (which, fine, whatever. I’m not judging. Do you).

But, it’s fascinating at just how risque this film is allowed to be for 1951, and what Hitchcock was able to get away with by simply implying situations.

The Plot Never Slows Down For Even A Second

Do you want to know something? Besides the rare exception, I think that most movies should be 90 minutes or less. For instance, my favorite Best Picture winner, Marty, is only 93 minutes long, and it makes every second count. My main problem with most movies is that a lot of them overstay their welcome, and have boring stretches that mar the overall experience.

Well, even though Strangers on the Train is a little longer than my preferred hour and a half runtime (but, not by much, at 101 minutes), there's not a single boring moment in this movie and it never lets up. From the very first scene, where we meet our two leads in Guy and Bruno, to the very end, where they’re fighting on an out-of-control carousel (oh, and you better believe I’ll get to that later), this movie just never lets up when it comes to tension and suspense.

A great deal of that is because we care for the characters, and can understand them…at least the “good” characters. Guy hates his wife and is in love with a senator’s daughter (Ruth Roman). He wants a divorce, but his adulterous wife won’t let him have one and even laughs in his face when he brings her the money to get the process in motion, saying that she’ll buy some clothes with the money instead.

I don’t condone murder, but I understand his frustration. So, when his wife IS murdered by Bruno, we don’t want Guy to get in trouble because we like him, and so when the cops get closer and closer to putting him in jail, we hope that he gets out of this okay.

Which is what keeps me fully engaged. I do think that a movie like Vertigo, or Rear Window is better, but they take their time (especially Vertigo). But, not so with Strangers on a Train. It never gives you a moment to check your phone.

The Third Act Literally Goes Full Tilt

Now, I’m not going to say that Strangers on a Train is ruined by its ending, like, say, Signs was (which I actually don’t dislike as much anymore after a rewatch). What I will say is that if there’s one aspect of this film that I think could have been better, it’s the ending, as it literally goes full tilt on an out-of-control carousel.

In the end of the film, Guy goes to the carnival where his wife was murdered, and Bruno is also there. He has a lighter that Guy once had, and it’s the key to clearing Guy’s name, which is why Bruno is making sure not to lose it (even though he does drop it down a metal grate earlier, which is also very suspenseful when he’s trying to retrieve it). Well, the cops are pursuing Guy, and one of them shoots the carousel operator, which sends the ride spinning at an incredible speed (so much so that Guy is hanging on for dear life with his legs flying behind him).

And…it’s ridiculous. I mean, the rest of the movie is so taut and tense, and yet, this climax is so cartoony. Even so, it’s definitely not boring. In fact, it might be TOO exciting, but it still doesn't take away from the rest of the wonderful experience.