Flawed


I rented the dvd from Netflix...excellent copy. Now for the movie. Even for a 1940 movie, some of the sets were amateurish to say the least and obvious. Would have been interesting if Hitchcock produced it. Some of the obvious flaws in the script...where Lockwood shows her hatred for the Nazis, and yet shows love interest in Harrison's German's character in front of Henreid, who knew about her hatred...and that should have been his first clue that there is something phony about Harrison...Then the two bungling Englishmen, overtaking ( we don't see this )2 armed Germen soldiers to impersonate them..unbeliveable. Not a bad film, but a flawed one.

reply

I agree with you. The mountain shots were obviously painted backdrops. Regarding the two bumbling Englishmen...they could have easily been England's answer to the US's Abbott and Costello.

reply

Charters and caldicott had appeared in a previous film, The Lady vanishes. their characters obviously proved popular, as they reappear in thus film, and were then given a film of their own, Crooks Tour.

reply

Hitchcock has his "version" of the movie, it's called The Lady Vanishes.

"'When you are grown up and very lonely, you will understand. Love, Uncle Fester.'....He's a dead man."

reply

Not "amateurish"; rather, massively constrained by the fact there was a war on in England at the time (in a much more immediate and raw materials limiting way than Hollywood would ever experience).

reply

Henreid did appear suspicious of the Harrison/Lockwood thing from the beginning, but elected to keep it to himself. As for the two bungling fellas, their takeover does strain credibility, but the element of surprise goes a long way... and anyway it´s not like they turned into Martians or something - the feat they performed IS humanly possible. And the relatively meager look of the sets is indeed attributable to the conditions in Britain at the time... but even so, the cable-car jump in the end looked actually less fake than the one in Moonraker 39 years later.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Franzkabuki, I like your signature quote, as I DESPISE Ronald Reagan. However, he actually said that "facts are stubborn things". He did TREAT them as if they're stupid things, however.

Our second worst president in history, second only to fascist war-monger W.

reply

I didn't mind the fake backdrops so much since I've always liked the look of dioramas and wondered what it'd be like to live in one... picture perfect, softly lit worlds. But it really is obvious.

I love this movie, and watching it for the second time now, I really enjoyed it more than the first time. The one word I can sum this movie up in would be "charming". It lacks any true suspense or action scenes, and the téléphérique scene at the end isn't what it could've been (I seem to recall Alistair MacLean's novel Where Eagles Dare having a superb scene in the novel—the movie's equivalent, which came out first, I don't recall).

Probably the biggest gimmick that bothered me was the elevator at the hotel where Rex Harrison tries to swoon Margaret Lockwood. They essentially walk into a "room", close the elevator doors, and the light changes (in a strange way that I can't figure out) and a black door slides up or down depending on the scene. But no one is actually traveling up the elevator.

So the whole movie is just super fake and cheap. But the dialogue is fun, the casting is perfect, and I'm sure they had fun making it. There's nothing to take away from the film but raw entertainment. Not even film students would find much to learn about.

reply

These movies made on tight budgets are not "super fake and cheap" -- but actually require some imagination from the viewer... Super fake and cheap is when a studio spends a hundred million on any movie theses days; e.g. "Borne Idiocy" where Matt Damon falls eight stories down a spiral stairwell, punches out a guy on the way down, contrives to land on him as a cushion, gets up, dusts himself off and strolls casually away.

reply

I saw the film last night on dvd, which included a multi-paged booklet instead of a "special features" section on the dvd. Yes, the director was quoted as saying that some of the sets demanded an explanation, and it was because of the budget of course. The fake trains, a lot of painted scenery, etc., well, this was a difficult period in history with the US on the brink of war with Germany and Japan. However, I loved the film, especially the comedy moments of which there were many.

reply

Yes, you have to look at these old movies like plays. Expect or even wanting realism is just infantile. Use your imagination.

reply

People are stupid, I get it. People want to judge moviemaking based on the criteria of 2016, yet most movies in 2016 are actually terrible.

This movie may have some limitations in some ways (irrelevant flaws in the script, circular reasoning, lack of understanding), etc.

Get over it. No movie is 100% "realistic." You need to let go of your biases and sensitivities and just watch the movie. If you can't do that, find another movie to watch.

Also, I get it that people love to come here to complain about movies, but grow up. Promise yourself that you will just write positive comments for a week or two and see if you feel better about yourself and enjoy the movies that you watch more.

reply

Even for a 1940 movie, some of the sets were amateurish to say the least and obvious. Would have been interesting if Hitchcock produced it.


And Hitchcock films are not full of amateurish sets and awful special effects?

Reed was at least as good if not better director than Hitchcock.
The Fallen Idol is a better Hitchcock movie than anything I've seen from Hitchcock himself.

That being said, I don't dispute that this film is flawed, it almost works better as a comedy than as a thriller.

reply

I was more amazed at the lack of horrors of war considering this is a war movie that came out in 1940 where WWII was still occurring.

reply