We love "Marnie" and have seen it multiple times. Tippi deserved an Oscar nomination but Hitchcock refused to campaign as punishment. She rebuked his blatant sexual advances and her career shortented. However, it's a given she retained her moral character throughout it all.

The psychology today appears dated, but the movie remains worthwhile with a young Sean Connery as American businessman instead of in the service of the Queen. The office girl who steals the money here, does better than the one in Psycho. Only a horse has an untimely death. Competent acting and good color photography. Including a Lincoln Continental with the “suicide “ doors.

If "Psycho" got "The Color of Night" pregnant, their baby would be "Marnie."

The score is exquisite, and despite some moments where the story slows, Hedren’s remarkable performance is worth watching until the end.

Starts really well but after an hour or so it starts to trudge along aimlessly. Like many Hitchcock films, it isn’t as thrilling as its historic billing. The ending is so absurdly acted and played out that it’s hard not to laugh. Was Sean Connery the oldest looking 33 year old ever? It’s a poor film, with terrible acting and an awful denouement. Absolutely no explanation as to why she was a kleptomaniac. Connery doing some amateur psychology at the end is ridiculous. The whole thing…come on… what was this?Watched on SKY cinema.

Solid but the last act didn't quite live up to its promise. The execution and the script that explains why Marnie is the way she is felt clumsily tied together. Entertaining overall.

At its core Marnie is Alfred Hitchcocks psychologically darkest film that he made. Sean Connery was great in the film, but the true star is Tippi Hedron, her performance in the film, bringing out the psychological damage in her performance is truly amazing and you can see why Hitchcock he would use her in other films that he made.

It's like someone tried to make a Hitchcockian movie and hired someone to compose a soundtrack in the style of Bernard Herrmann. And tell me again, why did she become a thief?

Marnie achieved a moderate box office success on its release, but was panned by critics. Opinions of the movie have improved since then, but it is still a film that arouses derision and anger as well as applause. While Alfred Hitchcock had been an adaptable director for many decades, smoothly making the transition from silent films to talkies, and from black-and-white to colour, he still had a few ideas of film-making that looked dated, and, some would say, silly at the time when he made Marnie. While contemporary directors were aiming for greater realism, some of Hitchcock's sets and effects looked uncomfortably phoney. We might forgive the unconvincing light effects intended to reproduce an electric storm – perhaps this is Marnie's perception of thunder and lightning. Still what are we to make of a fox-hunting scene that is self-evidently actors on dummy horses moving in front of a rear projection? Most egregious of all is the studio set outside the home of Marnie's mother that never for one minute looks like a real street. The ship in the background will never leave port during the movie for the good reason that it is obviously a painted backdrop. Nonetheless there is much to praise in Hitchcock's style. Consider the brilliant use of colour in the film, especially red and yellow. Observe the text-book perfection involved in the composition of many scenes. Listen to another haunting Bernard Herrmann music score that generates the right atmosphere for the action. Enjoy (perhaps) the intelligent script. Hitchcock's outlook in this film may enrage many viewers today. Does this make it a bad movie, or one that should never have been made? Absolutely not. The artist's duty is not to pander to the sensitivities of audiences, especially audiences whose sensitivity to women's issues have improved over several decades. The artist has only a responsibility to make something that is true to himself. If we find the particular neuroses and preoccupations of the artist to be repellent to our tastes over half a century later, then we have the right to condemn and critique the aspects of the artist that we do not like, but not to deny the artistry involved. As for the artistry, Marnie is certainly flawed. It has technical weaknesses that I outlined, and the story has its problematic elements, something that was seen by the original scriptwriter before the film was even released. Nonetheless it remains a beautiful and challenging late Hitchcock work. I am not sure that any of his later films match it in strength. I wrote a longer appreciation of Marnie on my blog page if you would like to read more: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2020/11/28/marnie-1964/

Purposefully directed with electrifying leads, Marnie is a peculiar drama of deceit, care, and trauma. Some psychological tropes are oversimplified in this film, but the behavior surrounding it is intriguing and keeps you on the edge of your seat until the end. Also, Connery and Hedren are delicious to watch.

This movie was quite interesting, but was ruined by one particular scene that put me off for the rest of the film.

In a single word its… strange. The score is nice and I really liked the color palette of the sets, locations, and costumes. I also must say that the opening shot is incredible and the raw cut from opening credits to scene is powerful. But the story was just…well, strange. I'm not sure why Hitchcock wanted to make a movie where he holds the audience completely confused until he reveals what the story really meant at the end. The story DID make sense and all was resolved…I don't know, confusion is not a very engaging emotion to sit with. It's a strange one.

One of the most unsettling Hitchcock's movies, 1964's "Marnie" is a psychological thriller by a director at the peak of his capabilities, in which the camera traces effortlessly the frantic erratic mind process of the main character, still resulting in a depiction perfect balanced between disease and cure, where the plot progression masterfully unravels, venturing recklessly in human darkness, the thick descriptive suspense where is well hidden the mystery of this troubled girl. 'Tippi' Hedren demonstrates to be a first class actress, in a multifaceted, complex, deep, till astonishing rendition, despite the fact it was her very second movie role. Sean Connery radiates his notorious charisma assuring a powerful performance, as diverse as the female lead is, torn between menaceful sexual instincts and the role of the guiding figure that doesn't permit this frigid thief to go adrift. Rich in memorable scenes, we can pick the 'fully cerebral' rape, stylized by an extreme eyes closeup and most of all the final memory exertion with a dreadful catharsis that set the standard of the background explanation in the horror and thriller genres (above all, the similar scene about the start of the child trauma in Dario Argento's "Deep Red").

I'm a huge Hitchcock fan, so I was disappointed by this. It has the wit and suspense of his past works, the beautiful music, acting and visuals of his usual team, but lacks the writing and, overall, purpose of a good movie. Mark is unlikeable and evil, and does nothing to redeem himself, even though he's supposed to look like a hero in the end. While the end twist is surprising and brutal, the lead-up is undeserving of it. It's only worth watching for completionists of Edith Head, Tippi Hedren, Sean Connery or Alfred Hitchcock.

Not forgettable and unique - but melodramatic!

To me, it's the most excellent motion picture, Marnie by English, Alfred Hitchcock with my most like actor, Sean Connery with good acting performance of actress, an American, Tippi Hedren... As usual, it is based on a 1961 with same name, by Winston Graham and is fitly adapted to screen, by Jay Presson Allen...

The start of Hitchcock's Downfall but it's still a very entertaining mystery

Hitchcock infuses a significant amount of style and mystery into this 1960's entry of his. Hedren and Connery actually make a fun pair.

The plot isn't so much, but everything else is good. The inadequacy of the plot is compensated with the director's work and the performances. Hitchcock uses his typical suspense techniques, and succeeds especially with scenes of psychological significance, except there isn't much to preamble for. The first majority of the movie is somewhat tedious, before everything explodes around the ending, as if that was the long-awaited relief from all the suspense, but in reality it isn't more than a terminus to a pseudo-esoteric anecdote. Despite these efforts, Marnie still cannot reside with the best work by any of Hitchcock, Connery, or Hedren. It is also worth mentioning that despite being the tritagonist, Diane Baker gives a notable performance.

Kind of a hot mess. Everything about the movie is inconsistent, from the performances (which have peaks and valleys) to the pop psychology, to the titular character. Over the top and soapy, it is nevertheless fascinating.