Mediocre film -- far too long

I cannot say it is one of the best Hitchcock films that I have seen - but I still think the plot did have some interest and intrique. I think in 1940 Hitchcock was still feeling his oats, so to speak.

I do have to say this about the end - SPOILERS ALERT here!



Hitchcock did a fantastically realistic job with the plane bombing by the German ship and then the subsequent crashing into the ocean and the passengers saving them selves. Did you not find that part riveting - or anybody else for that matter? I just watched this film for the first time last nite, and I was glued to the screen, this all without computers!!

Couldn't disagree more! I've justed watched Lady Vanishes and Foreign Cor., and though I enjoyed them both tremendously, I consider Foreign Cor. superior. There are a number of funny episodes, as in the former, but more darkness and menace too. It treats the world of espionage - if not realistically (Hitch isn't exactly John Le Carre!) - then in a more grown-up and plausible way than Lady Vanishes. There's a string of Hitch's bravoura scenes (the assassin fleeing beneath the crowd of umbrellas, Jones finding the kidnappers in the windmill, the final plane crash) to rival any of his more wellknown films. The acting is excellent - it's good to see Macrea as the hero, a less wellknown face than, say, Cary Grant, bringing a freshness to the part. Key characters like Van Meer, Fischer and Jones' very English sidekick, the absurdly named ffolliott, are played wonderfully too. I agree with you on one point: Laraine Day is no match for Margaret Lockwood in Lady Vanishes for either sweetnes or character, and so the romance suffers a bit. I'd still give it 7 or 8 out of 10, reserving 9/10 for an almost perfect film like North By Northwest, and 10/10 for a definitive classic like Rear Window.

I disagree. It's one of Hitch's less known treasures. It has an intriguing plot with many of his trademark touches which make it enjoyable all throughout. I was never bored. The actors are easily likable, even the villains. But I do agree that the romance might have been a bit rushed. I just can't believe a man would fall in love and ask for marriage so quickly. But I can forgive that because of the way it's handled.

I think this must be Hitchcock's most overlooked / underappreciated film. It's not his best, but I'd put it in the top 10.

Darren Skuja
"Film Is The Ultimate Artform"

[deleted]

I think your lack of enjoyment of this film was more down your lack ability to concentrate on one thing for a long peroid of time rather than any failing this film may or may not have.

*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***

I disagree that it drags on endlessly but I do agree it's not one of his finest films, and hasn't stood the test of time as well as some of his other films.

The on screen romance was totally unconvincing. It's not just the chemisty issue (though I agree I found it lacking), but also the silliness of the "romance"; they've known each other less than two days before they're declaring their mutual love and getting engaged! I know this is typical of the films at the time, and the moral environment they had to work with, but even with that in mind the whole romance sub-plot really gets in the way of the film.

And frankly I think McCrea was miscast. He barely acts in the entire film, instead just delivering his lines as rapidly as possible throughout, probably to help cram all the dialogue in the script in to 2 hours. The characters of Haverstock and Ffolliot would have better been merged in to one lead. However I can understand the need to have an American lead given the propaganda value of this film at the time.

Having said all that, the cinematography is absolutely superb throughout, as are the set pieces. The assassination scene and subsequent car chase were well realised and surprisingly enthralling and thrilling, despite being a 40s film watched through the jaded eyes of 21st century film goer. The plane crash was particularly impressive; it just goes to show what you can achieve with talent and imagination!

So overall I think it's a fairly good film, but not one of his greats. The set pieces are very impressive and a technical wonder, but the flimsy plot and poor acting don't allow this film to stand the test of time in my opinion. It is still a fascinating piece of history, both as a Hitchcock film but also as an extraordinary piece of propaganda - I imagine it was very powerful and effective on the audience at the time.

It does occur to me that in some ways it is similar to North by Northwest; a film with a series of impressive set-pieces with the plot seemingly an afterthought. The big difference for me though is that North by Northwest succeeds where this fails, probably in no small part thanks to Cary Grant.

I just watched this for the first time, and I thought it was marvelous. Brilliant photography and dialogue, and a plot that keeps you on the edge of your seat. I was also surprised at how affected I was by the big scene at the end. It was very intense and I was left a bit shaken by it! This film is most definitely essential.