Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Kirpianuscus for Charles Laughton must see this film. for his seductive performance. for his great science to transform a character in an entire story. for the art to give special aura to a film who has not the status of masterpiece. "Jamaica Inn" is a Hitchcock. a version of the book of Daphne de Maurier. a story from XIX century with bandits and the innocent, brave fragile victim. and everything becomes spectacular for the force of an actor to change each scene in a gem. "Jamaica Inn " gives a state more than a credible story. and this is a precious virtue. because it reminds and transforms and imposes pieces of literature in a seductive fragment of old ages.

emdragon I always enjoy the Hitchcock movies. Always. This one was no exception. Adapted from a famous novel by Daphne Du Maurier, Jamaica Inn is a period piece, one of a select few directed by Sir Alfred. The action also seems from a former time. It is overly romantic and slightly melodramatic. But that suits the picture, perfectly. The cast is excellent all around. Charles Laughton's performance is exemplary. He nuances his role as Sir Humphrey (the unknown behind the scenes leader of the wrecking gang) with sardonic wit and a slightly mad glee. It is said there were a few clashes between he and the director. It does not surprise me. They were similar characters, demanding as much space as space would allow, probably. I enjoyed Maureen O'Hara's performance. She avoided the usual naivete exhibited by many female leads for pictures of this ilk, though she never did more than she needed to. Robert Newton & the rest of the cast were similarly excellent, including deft performances by the older couple at the Inn (Leslie Banks and Marie Ney). Not much cinematography, but the storm scenes and final climactic ship scene at the end were well carried off. Sir Humphrey's palace was well and lavishly depicted as well. All in all, despite a few minor flaws here and there, a very enjoyable watch!

joe-pearce-1 I gave up reading the other reviews about halfway through as just about everybody thought that Laughton's performance was either absolutely glorious or hideously overdone, while those same reviewers seemed to think that this was either Hitchcock's worst film (or at least a contender for same) or a good effort ruined by Mr. Laughton's excesses. Maybe we should put ourselves back in 1939 and look at everything from that vantage point.It's seems hard to remember now (and surely nobody ever mentions this, in or out of these reviews), but for the decade of approximately 1932 to 1944 Charles Laughton was arguably the most famous and respected British actor on the planet! Gielgud had some stage fame, and Olivier, Redgrave and Richardson were coming along, while the movies could celebrate Donat and Colman as British romantic idols (with Olivier on the horizon), but it was Laughton who took on the crown increasingly abdicated by George Arliss as Britain's leading actor - at least to the rest of the world. So, when we start to talk about Hitchcock and Laughton, and the latter's possible adverse effects on the former where JAMAICA INN is concerned, it should be remembered that while gaining some international recognition over that period, in 1939 Hitchcock was a virtual non-entity in the worldwide movie-going mind next to Laughton. Laughton didn't need Hitchcock, and Hitchcock may not have needed Laughton, but it was still a feather in any director's cap to snare Laughton for a movie role, and this man who had given astoundingly memorable performances on both sides of the Atlantic in HENRY VIII, RUGGLES OF RED GAP, LES MISERABLES, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, REMBRANDT and VESSEL OF WRATH could only do Hitchcock's career good (his prior stars like Novello, Banks, Donat, Redgrave, and even Gielgud were simply not the things that film legends were made of in 1939, whatever some of them would subsequently become), so that I'm sure that, Laughton being one of the film's producers (although unlisted as such), Hitchcock took on this project knowing full well that it would be a Laughton vehicle before it would be a Hitchcock movie. Oh, yes, in subsequent interviews Hitch might complain of Laughton's performance in the film, but I'd bet my left shoulder that he did no such complaining at any time during the film's making, and that he was simply overjoyed to be working with him. Having said that, given the screenplay he worked with, Hitchcock did a very creditable job in directing. Yes, we might take note of the miniature ships seen in distance shots, but that was certainly not as bad as some of the cardboard audience members seen in 1934's THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and both the opening and closing storm scenes are beautifully rendered (and the murders in the opening scene quite spectacularly staged). Otherwise, there simply wasn't very much to work with. The only scenes in the film that were really "Hitchcockian" were the heroine's view from above of the hanging of Trahearne and her subsequent cutting of the death rope through the ceiling, and much later, both the understated and unseen release of Trahearne by Joss's wife, and then Maureen O'Hara heroically struggling to raise the flaming warning flare in the midst of a raging gale. The latter could easily stand in for an early 19th century British visual equivalent to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, so stentorian is its presentation, and it is surely the visual highlight of the entire film! (And that Hitchcock should favor a mere female with such a physically courageous act!) Other than for those scenes, the success of the film falls not on the shoulders of Hitchcock, but on the uncannily mesmerizing visage of Charles Laughton in every scene he is in. The latter MAKES the film, so why blame Laughton for its relative failure in terms of Hitchcockian expectations? In 2016, you are simply not seeing (or even ready to expect) what the 1939 film was intended to convey before all else - Laughton's performance!Warning: If you should be seeing this film on a Pop Flix set called "Deadly Mysteries Collection", be prepared to miss an entire reel between the time that the hero and heroine escape to Pengallon's castle and Trahearne and Pengallon's subsequent arrival at Jamaica Inn, with O'Hara already there, warning her aunt of their intentions. They have simply left it out!

Rainey Dawn Jamaica Inn is a neat little crime story of men that wreck ships for the profit that is on-board. Mary (O'Hara), who is generally a good person, finds herself in the middle of all this criminal activity. It's not the greatest story but it's a fun one. I've read that Hitchcock himself was not very pleased with the film but I take the film all in fun story wise. Now what this film has got going for it is great atmosphere and good and interesting characters - oh and a very charismatic Charles Laughton with a lovely Maureen O'Hara.Some people are not crazy about this particular - some seem to hate it - but I'm in the crowd that likes the film. I love these types of films - the ones with great atmosphere and great characters even if the story is a bit second rate or not so good.7/10