SunnyHello Nice effects though.
StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.
KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.
Portia Hilton Blistering performances.
John Brooks Hitchcock directs this very originally and interestingly written motion picture adaptation of a book and all in all this is a very entertaining train ride, with bumps along the road both literally and figuratively, and an ability to keep the viewer constantly interested and genuinely intrigued as to what is actually going on. We're given a host of twists and turns and the development never ceases to be highly dynamic, while the acting is very good with notably the two main and the doctor characters, the dialog as always in Hitchcock films of very sound quality, and it seems just about the right length - such films turn dull after too many twists and lingering plot.The only concern one may have with this is that towards the last quarter of the film, although it's all innate to the storyline the final act resembles very little of what's been going on for the whole bulk of the film and this sort of venturing outside the atmosphere worked so hard to set initially, if one considers the name of the film, the mystery etc... it could feel a bit like this train has gone off track, despite the coherence in story, the atmosphere certainly borrows another path perhaps a bit too different.7.5/8ish.
grantss Good Hitchcock thriller. A young woman is travelling through continental Europe on a train when she realises that an elderly lady appears to have vanished from the train.Intriguing plot, though gets too convoluted towards the end, and the final scene is rather tame and trite. Perfectly paced, Hitchcock gives you a thorough introduction to the main characters before spinning his web of intrigue. For a thriller, the mood is actually quite light and humorous, rather than dark and edgy, which helps the movie speed along.Good performances all round. Michael Redgrave and Margaret Lockwood are excellent in the lead roles.
l_rawjalaurence Why does THE LADY VANISHES stand up so well, nearly eighty years after its first release? By rights, it shouldn't do so; filmed almost entirely in Islington Studios, with extensive use of back- projections, second unit film and model shots, its modest budget is palpably evident: no CGI graphics to liven up the action here. But such criticisms seem unimportant in a film whose various elements seem to cohere perfectly. As the heroine Iris Henderson, Margaret Lockwood is both strong-willed yet vulnerable, especially in the scenes in the train where she insists that the eponymous lady Miss Froy (Dame May Witty) actually exists, despite her fellow- engers' denials. Her male companion Gilbert (Michael Redgrave) undergoes something of a character change, as he sheds his supercilious exterior and dedicates himself to solving the mystery. The way he stands up to the evil doctor Hartz (Paul Lukas), is quite irable. Yet Hitchcock's film is perhaps noticeable for the quality of its ing performances. Cecil Parker and Linden Travers, as a pair of illicit lovers, are both frightened and scared of discovery; they do not want anything to do with the mystery. Parker tries his best to remain detached, even agreeing to surrender at one point; but his overtures are ruthlessly spurned. Mary Clare as an Italian-speaking Baroness remains sour-faced throughout; it's clear she's only in the whole scheme for the money. By contrast Catherine Lacey, as a would be nun in high heels, realizes the error of her ways and s Gilbert in his quest. The two stand-out ing actors are Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne as the cricket-loving Charters and Caldicott. Due to their obsession with the Test Match at Manchester, they are prepared to sacrifice everything, even their integrity; but when they become involved in the denouement, they prove to be worthy allies. Caldicott turns out to be a crack shot, which proves exceptionally useful in the circumstances. The duo proved so successful that they reappeared in other films, notably NIGHT TRAIN TO MUNICH (1940) and IT'S NOT CRICKET (1949).Hitchcock is at his most playful here, enjoying the forbidden pleasures of photographing ladies in a state of déshabillé (Lockwood, Googie Withers, and Sally Stewart), or the visual jokes of seeing Gilbert and Iris trying to find the vanishing lady in the guard's van, or Gilbert trying and failing to the melody that contains a vital clue necessary to Britain's future security. The plot is pure hokum, of course, but as with many of Hitchcock's British films, it is largely irrelevant. It's far more fruitful to share the director's joy at concocting such a technically near-perfect piece of entertainment.
TurboarrowIII I think this is a poor film.It seems to be trying to be a drama, comedy, slapstick and farce all in one but failing badly in all areas. Even for a film made so long ago and in the period leading up to war it appears poor. The fight scene in the luggage compartment of the train was particularly hammy and amateurish. It seemed like a pantomime scene and a bad pantomime scene at that. Unrealistic and so badly done it made it stand out as a particular low point amongst many.The part where a couple of stereotypically portrayed bumbling Englishmen with a couple of pistols are able to stop troops from taking the train is ridiculous. The old lady spy is allowed to just run away and escape with no real attempt by the enemy troops to stop her. That is laughable but not meant to be I don't think. This was made when Europe was close to war and was presumably meant to show that Britain would stand up and fight but it isn't even a good propaganda film because of the laughable stereotypes and hammy nature of the whole thing.This hasn't got anything going for it. The actors can't really perform because their characters are more like pantomime ones and the corny action scenes just look amateurish and totally unconvincing. Not good.
