Juno and the Paycock - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Juno and the Paycock Reviews

Page 1 of 2
½ June 20, 2015
Ah to be sure, twiddly dee, tiss another terrible effort in de early years of Mr. Hitchcock. This one is full on blarney Irish nonsense though.
½ January 12, 2015
Staged like a play, filmed from a mostly fixed perspective, little is done to adapt the story to film and dull direction and mixed performances are not the best for such a dialogue heavy piece; a real misstep.
September 3, 2014
This film is often noted for the fact that it is just plain slow, mainly because it is shot like a stage-play, and it is fairly true. Hitchcock took a successful play, and just shot it with very little in the way of interest or speed that the director is more commonly associated with. Quite frankly, Hitchcock's earlier British films tend not to be the kind of thing people usually think of when they hear his name. I think near the end of his time working in the British system his films became the kind of thing people think of though...this film is a dull and uninteresting (and plain) adaptation of a play, and I'm sure as a play it was far more interesting.
½ July 10, 2014
Review In A Nutshell:

I never thought there would ever be a film from Hitchcock that would disappoint me. Juno and the Paycock is so incredibly dull that it couldn't even hold my attention at least for a minute. I go in and out of consciousness while watching this. Right from the start, I know this film has something to say and themes to explore but it is done in such a poor and uninteresting way that all of the story's power is wiped away. Juno and the Paycock is based on a play by Sean O'Casey; Hitchcock, most likely, tried to retain that simplistic quality where the bulk of the film takes place in a single room, which I wouldn't really mind if the film was able to execute it in a dynamic and entertaining way. The film is so stiff, featuring shots that stay on the actors that ramble on and on, most of which is unintelligible due to both the poor quality of original elements and the thick accents of the actors. There was no sense of drama in the scene at all; this would probably the only time when I would actually look for melodrama as the material is just so stale that presenting it in a natural fashion would just fail to keep its audience engaged. The film also lacked a musical score which made the film feel so empty and lifeless. The acting was the only thing that kept it from being the worst film I have ever seen, as actors were able to come off as mediocre; which is definitely a high point for this film. If one wants to keep thinking that Hitchcock is a master filmmaker who hasn't created anything tiresome, then please avoid this film.
½ July 9, 2014
Review In A Nutshell:

I never thought there would ever be a film from Hitchcock that would disappoint me. Juno and the Paycock is so incredibly dull that it couldn't even hold my attention at least for a minute. I go in and out of consciousness while watching this. Right from the start, I know this film has something to say and themes to explore but it is done in such a poor and uninteresting way that all of the story's power is wiped away. Juno and the Paycock is based on a play by Sean O'Casey; Hitchcock, most likely, tried to retain that simplistic quality where the bulk of the film takes place in a single room, which I wouldn't really mind if the film was able to execute it in a dynamic and entertaining way. The film is so stiff, featuring shots that stay on the actors that ramble on and on, most of which is unintelligible due to both the poor quality of original elements and the thick accents of the actors. There was no sense of drama in the scene at all; this would probably the only time when I would actually look for melodrama as the material is just so stale that presenting it in a natural fashion would just fail to keep its audience engaged. The film also lacked a musical score which made the film feel so empty and lifeless. The acting was the only thing that kept it from being the worst film I have ever seen, as actors were able to come off as mediocre; which is definitely a high point for this film. If one wants to keep thinking that Hitchcock is a master filmmaker who hasn't created anything tiresome, then please avoid this film.
½ May 4, 2014
Il est bien gentil, Alfred Hitchcock, avec ses innovations techniques dans les annees 20 et tout le toutim, mais ce qui compte dans un film, au-dela de ce qu'il apporte au cinema, c'est qu'il soit divertissant, passionnant ou meme interessant. Ici, cette adaptation de la piece Junon et le Paon est d'un ennui mortel, du theatre filme avec des acteurs qui en font trois fois trop et des scenes tres souvent trop longues. C'est dommage car cette histoire de famille brisee par l'IRA et la Guerre Civile irlandais aurait du etre bien plus dramatiquement engageante. Sara Allgood sort un peu du lot.
½ February 26, 2014
It's rather boring, simple, and lacking. It's not Hitchcock's best work. The story is alright but not too interesting. There are decent parts, a slow ending, but overall it's a bit hard to sit through.
November 26, 2012
Juno and the Paycock is a bland film from Hitchcock's early days in film. In film-making terms it lacks finesse and distinctiveness. The plot is uninteresting and meandering, this certainly isn't for everyone.
January 10, 2012
65%

"Boyle, no man can do enough for Ireland."

Not much happens. A family and neighbors stand around talking, waiting for a inheritance check.

"I'll take no breakfest,I still have a little spirit left in me."-Captain John 'Paycock' Boyle (Edward Chapman)
cosmo313
Super Reviewer
½ December 19, 2011
This is one of Hitchcock's early efforts, and, I believe, his second "talkie". It's also a very atypical effort in that it is a human drama based on an acclaimed play concerning the trials and tribulations of an average Dublin tenemant family during Ireland's "troubles" in the early 1920s.

That it covers material different from what Hitch would later become a master at makes it kinda interesting, if only to see how he would handle things. Well, apparently this film is a close adaptation, but that doesn't mean that it really works.

In all honesty, this film is a real drag. It's boring, unengaging, and reminded me a lot (to an extent) of Angela's Ashes, only not as good and harder to sit through. It also feels far longer than it is. Sara Allgood gives a decent performance, and holds everything together, but everyone else falls short. On top of that, the sound quality is pretty bad (the kinks hadn't been worked out yet) and that, combined with the thick accents of some of the performers makes it really difficult to discern what is going on at times.

Visually the film is at least sort of interesting, with a bulk of the film being a series of static medium shots, sometimes done in long takes. Aside from that though, the film isn't really innovative or captivating.

I don't really recommend it unless you are a completist or have a big fascination with early "talkies".
November 15, 2011
This is an interesting adaptation of the Sean O'Casey stage classic. Kudos to Hitchcock for attempting to direct a version of this ambitious theatrical work so early in his career, but it does fall flat in places. Overall though, its a solid effort.
September 30, 2011
The 1930s started off with a bit of a whimper for Hitchcock. From what I've heard this is a faithful adaptation of Sean O'Casey's play, but pretty much any director could have filmed it. It lacks the cinematic touches and suspense of his later films. In fact the direction is surprisingly amateurish from Hitch, with there being numerous instances where he even cut off the heads of the actors talking!! The story itself was quite interesting but for one reason or another I don't think it came across very well in this film.
½ August 24, 2011
I've never lost interest in a film faster.
May 1, 2011
A little slow getting into it.
February 10, 2010
You need to make some allowances when watching films this old with the techincal limitations of the time. This is one of the first "talkies", but the sound quality is pretty poor and I struggled to follow all the dialogue. Does have its moments and features a young private Frazer from Dads Army, but overall for Hitchcock fans only.
bbcfloridabound
Super Reviewer
October 14, 2009
One of the real Early Works of Alfred Hitchcock, has it his first, I don't know, but it lacks any real sign of the master himself in this film. I would give it a 1/2 star but Being a Hitchcock film, I will give it a single star. Think its supposed to be a British Comedy, no wonder I never dated a British Girl, Dry as a Bone. Must have come out right after sound was put on film, It came in a 10 Movie Hitchcock Collection. Your time is better spent playing in the middle of the road of a busy highway. If Hitchcock makes and appearance in this one, will someone please tell me where. 1 star its TRASH
October 3, 2009
Interesting curio & record of the Abbey Players from the time. Doesn't begin to work, of course.
February 16, 2009
5 stars for having m name in it and having pay cock in it XD

rofl
½ January 8, 2009
An odd blend of comedy and tragedy. Hitchcock reputedly loved the play upon which the film was based but was unhappy with this filmed version.
½ January 7, 2009
This was very weird. Can't believe I was so enthralled. Defiantly not my favorite type o ending or cup of tea all 2gether
Page 1 of 2