It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

'Murder!' is much thrilling and better movie than its current (2018) score might imply, although bit meandering and uneven in pacing the story is still interesting and well though out. The opening scene where camera movies along the street and people open their windows to the noise is pure example of genius director at work. The courtroom scene and the one after that where the jury argues over the verdict is wonderfully suspenseful. With the jury scene Hitchcock also plays wonderful trick how people with different opinions and understandings are sometimes simply bullied to agree with the great majority without even listening their arguments. The middle part of the film where the main character tries to solve the murder, although offering some humorous moments might seem bit dull to some, but shortly before the great reveal, the film picks up the pace and thrills when the main character starts his cat and mouse game with the supposed killer. And then the thrilling ending.Definitely worthwhile early Hitchcock picture.

The print used by studio canal in their box set with a death mask of Hitchcock - has dropouts in which the screen goes BLACK. I mean come on its 2017. ...................political correctness ..... no killer can be gay...or has black blood.......... or whatever?.......... its an old movie LEAVE IT ALONE!!! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right after Handell Fane departs for good a SCENE IS CUT. When the body is brought by on a stretcher a man says "Neck Broken" then a lot of people milling about ......... a man in charge gives an envelope to Sir John written by the dead man. Says: "I don't know if this means anything..." all this is CUT. all you see is Sir John reading the contents of the letter to Markham. ITS NOT THEIR JOB to reedit movies. Especially ones from box sets with the mans death mask. Its a tribute! Don't tribute the man by trashing his work. i bought the set for one movie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Way back in time - go back .... back to the days when the vcr was first invented... in 1979 Alfred Hitchcock Died. On PBS across the United States was a showing of several of his films from Archival Prints in BFI. by special arrangement with PBS: Secret Agent 1936, Champagne 1928 and MURDER 1930. I recorded these and watched them dozens of times. They were in perfect condition NOT AT ALL like the bastardized version of MURDER put out by Studio-Canal. There is a scene where they go from Sir John's Office lunch to Markham's Room in which the film is "Burnt"! I assure you on that 1979 showing the film was not burnt. I still have SECRET AGENT on tape from 1979. It has Never been on TV since then. I lost Champagne & Murder unfortunately moving around. Studio-Canal needs to get the BFI Print which is complete and perfect. I DO NOT CARE what the reason is to show a burnt movie but by 2017 it should be replaced. The killer is queer or No he's not queer he just wears women's clothes - No he wears Police Costumes - No he's got black blood. - No he's just a normal killer who don't want to get caught and will wear any disguise. He could have 6 girlfriends - He's a killer So no reason to burn a film. Stop Now and try to buy a DVD of MURDER without the burnt scene. Go ahead! Now do it!

A jury finds an actress guilty of murder. Afterward, one of the jurors (Herbert Marshall) has second thoughts about their verdict. So he decides to conduct his own investigation into the crime. Early talkie from Alfred Hitchcock is notable for featuring the first voice-over in film history. Obviously the film shows the limitations of the medium in 1930. Given those limitations, Hitch's direction is all the more impressive. You can see some of the master's burgeoning greatness in some of the techniques he uses and the little bits of humor sprinkled throughout. It's still a slow-moving and often creaky relic of early sound filmmaking, but it managed to keep my interest. Nice ending, too.

...at least for American audiences. First, between the primitive state of sound recording in 1930 and the heavy British accents here (not to mention a couple of scenes where the background music drowns out the speech), I found it difficult to catch some of the dialog...and, hence, some of the story line. Second, like many British films, I found the story to move along dreadfully slowly in some scenes.However, it is nice to see some early British Hitchcock, and to then realize how quickly film-making in general, and his film-making evolved shortly after that.I watched this film primarily because the primary star is Herbert Marshall, long a favorite of mine...though he has been somewhat forgotten to history. This was only his third film. And, it is Marshall that makes the film worth watching. What I mean by that is that the first section of the film -- where we learn about the murder -- is poorly and primitively done. It's not until the jury deliberation segment that the film becomes a bit sophisticated, and the first impressive acting we see is by Marshall at the end of the deliberation segment (his first spoken part in the film) and, a short time later as he is shaving. Now that's acting! Everything else to that point has just been people saying lines in rather immature depictions of minor characters...although even the female lead (Norah Baring) is a pretty poor actress with a horrid voice for films. And, unfortunately, the next segment, where Marshall has a chat and dinner with two people from the theatre group from which the accused murderess worked, the dialog is clumsy and awkward. This seems to happen throughout the film...a few pretty good scenes mixed in with some pretty bad scenes.I don't know much about 1920s England, but egads, the settings (whether houses or court rooms or prisons) seem downright primitive. And why are several of the women who clearly live in minimal standards wearing fur coats? There really is only one segment worth of Hitchcock -- the climax. You watch, knowing exactly what the character will do...although he doesn't do exactly what you think he will...but accomplishes the same thing. It's a suspense building scene, nonetheless, and the faces of the crowd are quite impressively done.So, what's the bottom line? If Alfred Hitchcock's eventual career had depended on this film, in my view none of us would have ever heard of Alfred Hitchcock. This isn't the first 1930 film I ever watched...but it's probably the worst. There are only two reasons to watch it -- to see what early Hitchcock was like, or because you admire Herbert Marshall. Otherwise, give it a wise berth.