Is she blowing him off? I didn't like the main character Iris at all, disliked her shallow decadent lifestyle from the start of the movie. Was the ending showing her returning to her shallow lifestyle? Good film, but the ending, just not sure. Too smart arse imho. I've never saw a good remake ever, and this one was no exception. Still prefer the Hitchcock classic.
shareThis WASN'T a remake. It was an adaptation of a novel "The Wheel Spins" by Ethel Lina White (and, apparently, quite a faithful one). It was Alfred Hitchcock who took huge liberties with his film.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Actually it was a remake, anything which has been done before makes any subsequent movie a remake and liable to be compared to what went before. Doesn't matter how true to the original story it was. The ending still sucked. I've never read the novel, but if it ended like that it stunk. It was the job and duty of the screen writer to write an ending suitable for the movie.
shareMy favourite novel is Jane Eyre. According to IMDb, it has been adapted for the screen perhaps as many as 30 times, the first time in 1910 and the most recent in 2011. Some were very faithful to the book, others were travesties! Has each incarnation been a remake of what went before? Where does one stop?
The mistake that this production made was cashing in on the name change The Lady Vanishes. As I said before, Hitchcock made many changes to the novel (wikipedia lists the alterations, some quite major). Not calling this BBC production The Wheel Spins meant that comparisons to Hitchcock's film were, unfortunately, inevitable.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
I liked the ending. I was expecting her to fall into his arms and ride off into the sunset with him--the way most Agatha Christie stories would have ended and was pleased that she didn't. My take was that she wasnt blowing him off, just going to give him a chance to prove himself to her. And I expect he will. I agree--she was a very disagreeable character in the beginning, but her persistence won me over.
And off topic, I loved seeing Auntie Joan and Mrs Tischell from Doc Martin in the cast.
Pix
My take was that she wasnt blowing him off, just going to give him a chance to prove himself to her
Saw it again. Now I like the ending. The guy was a jerk. He wouldn't trust her. Let him prove himself. I don't blame her one bit making him work for it. It wasn't shallowness - she literally could not trust the man. She now knows what this guy is like under pressure when all are doubting her - he joins the crowd! If anything she was kind in giving him another shot of any kind.
shareI'm not convinced he was getting another shot. Very confusing ending.
shareI think she was being coquettish at the end. When he shouts, asking her the name of the hotel she will be staying in, she shouts back "I thought you were clever." So I think she may have given him clues at some point about the name of the hotel. But I agree about Iris not being a particularly sympathetic character. A fairly good alternative to the Hitchcock original. But it's that Hitch original that I shall be returning again and again.
shareSorry to go on about this, but the Hitchcock film was not the "original". This TV movie is an adaptation of the novel "The Wheel Spins" by Ethel Lina White, and is a good deal more faithful to the source material than Hitchcock's film (which was also very good in it's own right, of course).
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
If this adaptation had used 'The Wheel Spins' as it's title it would have been even more faithful to the novel. But they have used Hitchcock's title to cash in on the fame that Hitch brought to the story. There is nothing wrong in calling the 1938 film the original. They got to the story first and made it memorable. That was the first adaptation of the same story.
share@ganglehog:
If two films are adaptations of a book, I hardly think you can call the first film "the original". I won't be pedantic about it, though.
I do, however, agree with you on the following point:
If this adaptation had used 'The Wheel Spins' as it's title it would have been even more faithful to the novel. But they have used Hitchcock's title to cash in on the fame that Hitch brought to the story.
I will try to find a copy of 'The Wheel Spins' to read, supergran. It's a great story. Although I did refer to the 1938 film as the original, I would never refer to this production of the story as a remake of the Hitchcock movie. Considering the story as opposed to the way it has been handled by film-makers, there is a difference I feel.
shareI'm with Supergran on this one; this is not a "re-make". Had they tinkered with Hitchcock's screenplay and used it to produce a film, it would be a re-make of the Hitchcock, but they didn't and it isn't. It's a different (and to my mind inferior) adaptation of the book.
Consider "The Prisoner of Zenda". The 1952 version used large portions of script from the 1937 version (and exactly the same score) to tell the same story in the same way. It was a re-make. The 1979 used a completely different script to tell a rather different story in a completely different way. It was not a re-make but a different adaptation of the same book.
Since this (rather feeble) version is based on the same book but not on the same screenplay it is certainly not a re-make of either the Hitchcock or the 1979 version. The 1979 version, though, was certainly a re-make of the Hitchcock.
Exactly, ProfessorPotts.
One big point of disagreement, though - I thoroughly enjoyed this version.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
Then disagree we must! I didn't hate this version, just didn't think it was very good and was left feeling vaguely disappointed. It moved back towards the darkness of the book, which I liked, and I liked the cinematography, but I thought the cast was poor and the script was weak. The 1979 re-make was vastly inferior to the Hitchcock, but was at least an enjoyable film - more of an adventure than a thriller - this version treats the book as a thriller (as did Hitchcock) but doesn't really pull it off.
shareI rather liked Tuppence Middleton - a face to watch out for in the future. And the character actors were first class - Selina Cadell, Gemma Jones and Stephanie Cole. I also liked the period feel.
Sorry to disagree again, but the 1979 film was just played for laughs. Ok if you like that, but Cybill Shepherd was incredibly grating. The only good thing was the fantastic pairing of Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.