Juno and the Paycock

1930
4.6| 1h34m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 29 June 1930 Released
Producted By: British International Pictures
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

During the Irish revolution, a family earns a big inheritance. They start leading a rich life, forgetting what the most important values of life really are. At the end, they discover they will not receive that inheritance; the family is destroyed and penniless. They must sell their home and start living like vagabonds.

Genre

Drama, Comedy

Watch Online

Juno and the Paycock (1930) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

Alfred Hitchcock

Production Companies

British International Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial
Watch Now
Juno and the Paycock Videos and Images

Juno and the Paycock Audience Reviews

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.
Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
Syl It is hard to believe that this is an Alfred Hitchcock film after all. The movie is based on Irish playwright Sean O'Casey's play of the same name about an Irish family named the Boyles. This is a faithful stage to screen adaptation with some minor changes. Still the cast are members of the Irish Abbey Theatre Company and have performed the play on stage together hundred times. The cast is first rate. Real life sisters Sara Allgood and Maire O'Neill are excellent especially O'Neill in an unforgettable performance. She was such a scene stealer. The family learns that their an inheritance only disappointment in the end. The film is unlike Hitchcock's other films but yet it is worth watching an early stage to screen adaptation with the original cast of players who originated their roles on stage. That is how to do a stage to screen adaptation with the original cast.
dallasryan This is a film that is poorly edited, directed and captured on camera from shot to shot. However it is early in Hitchcock's career as it is also a film that plays out more like a play and/or sitcom then an actual film. The acting is okay, but what I do like about it is the fact that it has some very interesting concepts to think about. This film definitely has a lot of food for thought. Furthermore I also like the fact that this film is completely different than anything Hitchcock would go on later to do as far as story and style wise in his films. I always respect the fact when a director can do something a little different or completely different then the style and (in David Lynch's case) story that they are known for. Early in Kubrick's career, Kubrick did some different styles than his usual signature stuff, and Hitchcock did something completely different than his norm with this film here. Kudos for the effort. Most great directors usually have a few that are different than their norm, and that's a good thing because to be the best one needs to go through trial and error at times. Decent film here though, worth a look for the different style.
Hitchcoc I remember this sad hopeless play from college theatre classes. You start with a down and out family, throw in alcoholism and ennui and you have this story. The characters live under the black cloud that is Ireland at this time. They have a chance to get out (though it proves false) and instead of making sure of things they go on a binge and make their situation even worse. The movie has good performances and looks pretty good, but O'Casey has written such a downer, it's hard to enjoy it. Also, Hitchcock really didn't put a signature on it, other than the fact that it is well filmed. The oppressiveness of the dark shades of gray and the sunken eyes of the performers is pretty well presented. The play is plea to God to give them something for once, but it says that these people are incapable of receiving. It could use a ray of sunshine. The final scene makes a person want to cry because from what I've read, this was not atypical for these people at this time.
Chuck Rothman (crothman) While competently directed, the movie is too obviously a photographed stage play (thought Hitchcock tried to open it up). It's nothing like his usual type of film, either; the one bit of suspense as a twist is obvious from the beginning (the actor overacts too obviously). Other plot twists are obvious quite early.Still, it has its moments. There's some nice comedy and characterization. If you're a Hitchcock completist, it's worth looking at to see how he handles a type of material he didn't seem attuned with. If not, you may find uninteresting.(Not a criticism of the film, but the Irish accents can make it hard to make out some of the dialog.)