In the early 1930s Alfred Hitchcock did a historic costume movie called WALTZES FROM VIENNA about the Strauss Family. He obviously never enjoyed such films (he never tried musicals or pseudo-biographies again). But it was the first of three attempts he made to do a historic film. While none were total disasters, none is usually counted among his best films. One can't deny this is fair with WALTZES FROM VIENNA but JAMAICA INN should not be totally denied as being a good Hitchcock film.<br /><br />It was his first attempt to do a story from novelist Daphne Du Maurier. This would also be part of the reason for JAMAICA INN's low rating - the following year Hitch would do Du Maurier's REBECCA, as his first Hollywood film, his first film with David Selznick, and it would be his only film to win the Oscar as best picture. Without trying to rip down REBECCA, it's higher production standards outclass JAMAICA INN. <br /><br />JAMAICA INN would also be the first of two films that Hitch made with Charles Laughton. Given that the other was THE PARADINE CASE, neither of them are in his top films. Hitchcock would always say that he always found Laughton a very difficult actor to direct, and claim that Laughton insisted on trying to base the character of Sir Humphrey on the walk he had. Supposedly his mincing little walk was that of a public school boy who had peed in his pants. Yet his regency baronet and his corrupt Old Bailey Judge were both excellent performances, and are among Laughton's best characters.<br /><br />The film is about wrecking during the Regency period (roughly 1810 to 1837). As such one can see it as a kind of continuation of George Arliss' DR. SYN (later remade with Patrick MacGoohan as THE SCARECROW OF ROMNEY MARSH). That was set in the 1770s - 1780s. But the issue of the wreckers is handled differently. The Arliss and MacGoohan films stress the economic unfairness of the revenue anti-smuggling laws, and how they impact on the locals who support the smuggling ring. Arliss, in his trial scene, reminds the jury how he helped his neighbors. MacGoohan's followers insist on chanting a sardonic mantra, "THE KING'S LAW, THE KING'S LAW", when discussing the revenue laws. But Hitch follows a pro-law and order point of view. The wreckers have murdered people and are targeted by the government for destruction. Robert Newton is sent as their leading agent to find out the smuggler's secret.<br /><br />Newton (here young, vigorous, and not the slave to alcohol he became a decade later) learns that the key is at Jamaica Inn, a desolate, ill-famed hostelry, run by Leslie Banks (this would be Banks' second film with Hitchcock - he'd been in the original THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH). Banks does not like strangers too much, but he has his hands full - his niece Maureen O'Hara has shown up in need of a home and job. O'Hara notices the comings and goings of certain locals at the inn, and so does Newton. Eventually they join forces to solve the riddle. They find only one ally: the local magistrate and baronet, Sir Humphrey. Laughton's regency buck is far better than the mincing step story suggests. He is a cultivated type surrounded by boobs, and he lets us know what he is up against. His performance, supported by Newton, O'Hara, and Banks, makes the film.<br /><br />But the best dramatic moment in the film is by Stephen Haggard, the youngest of the smugglers. When told he will be hanged, he gets hysterical, screaming about he's too young to die. Even the last scene with Sir Humphrey is not quite as effective as that moment. A scene like that should have guaranteed a lasting career for Haggard in film. Sadly, if you look up his filmography on this board, you will find he was (like Leslie Howard) a war casualty in 1943.