Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Midgegirl On a wet, dreary Sunday I watched both versions of this film more or less back to back, fully expecting to prefer the earlier Hitchcock version (I'm a Hitch fan) yet I was pretty surprised to find it wasn't that straightforward.Yes- the earlier version is in many ways more economical in its story telling, rapidly showing the mittelEuropean setting plus avalanche and thus getting straight to the business of the problems at the hotel within 3 minutes (including opening titles) rather than the picturesque but drawn-out opening of the 1979 version. And the editing is often more stylish in its inter-cutting of images of train tracks, wheels and whistles into subtle plot points.But such things aside, for me the modern version has an improvement on the original because it uses real history. It's set one year after the original film (1938) and so uses WWII reasons for the plot. The original film was made and set in 1938 and uses preWWI reasons and a fictitious country, highlighting just how separated from real events that movie was. Obviously the writers weren't to know everything in Europe was about to go up in flames, but hindsight inevitably dates the quaint portrayal of incendiary events.I found Cybill Shepherd's character gratingly brattish, and nowhere near as charming as Carole Lombard that she was allegedly trying to emulate, but that was as nothing to how annoyingly entitled and arrogant most of the characters were in the 1938 version. Hitchcock may well have been satirising how awful the English are abroad, but he also filled his movie with patronising stereotypes of "funny foreigners" who were treated with varying degrees of disdain by all, even Miss Froy. Charters & Caldicott's treatment of the maid who had to give up her room to them was plain obnoxious.There was a good deal of believable warmth and chemistry between Lansbury and Shepherd that was lacking imo between Whitty & Lockwood. And for me, Arthur Lowe can get more dry comedy out of one line, or even one look, than several scenes with Basil Radford."Mrs Todhunter's" motivation for saying she saw Miss Froy is more slickly conveyed in the earlier version, but Herbert Lom's doctor is a more fully realised character in the later one so it came as a better twist for me when we find out what he's really up to.For me, Iris & Gilbert gradually bonding over lunch and in the luggage carriage was more endearing than Robert's leering appreciation of Amanda's bra-less figure in a slinky dress, regardless of how alluring she looked in it. And the reason for the nun to switch sides is better hinted at in the 1938 version (because she's English) whereas the 1979 version unnecessarily complicates things by making her married to the doctor who in turn is the aristocratic lady's nephew- all for no story-telling gain.Hitchcock also wrings far more tension out of the drugged drinks than happens in the remake, as well as more daft comedy out of the inept fight in the luggage car. However, I did enjoy Amanda & Robert's madcap reactions when they thought they'd been poisoned. Gould is naturally funny; Shepherd occasionally so.The shootout is much better acted out in the 1979 version, but changing the male lead's profession from musician to photographer meant that Miss Froy pulling him away from the life-or-death shooting match in order to teach him a vitally important piece of music -instead of teaching just Amanda- didn't make sense; better to have left him being a music specialist and thus having a good reason for pulling him away from a vital shootout. Nor does the modern version even attempt to explain why this tune is important anyway (daft though it is).Both films are the same length to within a minute, but the more efficient story-telling in the older version left enough time to include the story line of the officer who boards the train at the shootout, and he adds even greater tension in the final act. What also adds to the final 3 minutes of the original, is delaying the clinch between the two leads until then, rather than Shepherd & Gould making it clear that they're a couple far earlier.I loved the musical score of the remake- it really added to the lush feel, along with the gorgeous location shots- and ironically, it reminded me in places of the score to one of Hitchcock's other movies- Marnie.So in summary: 1979 photography/scenery >19381979 music >1938Angela Lansbury >May WhittyArthur Lowe >Basil Radford1979 characters far less obnoxious with foreigners than 19381979 political backdrop >1938But1938 editing & tight story-telling >1979Margaret Lockwood >Cybill Shepherd1938 Plotting & motivation >19791938 mystery & suspense >1979All in all, I think I *just* prefer the original, mostly because Margaret Lockwood is so winningly gorgeous in it, but there is plenty to recommend the newer version, and it was by no means a pointless remake.

artboy34 Cybill Shepherd's performance in this movie is so bad, it overshadows the rest of the movie. I've seen more character depth in the chorus of a high school musical! Angela Lansbury was spot on in her performance, though. Too bad the pre-"Moonlighting" Cybill had to go and muck it up.The settings were beautiful, and beautifully photographed, but they weren't enough to save this train wreck (pardon the pun). There just didn't seem to be enough tension between the characters who were "in" on the plot and those who were oblivious to it.I'd watch the original (or a Finnish comedy with Polish subtitles) before I'd ever watch this again.

Steve Myers I am completely amazed by some of the other comments here, which claim it's a flawed if reasonable movie. The film is a remake of a classic, which wasn't that great in the first place, but this is simply dire. Let's just think about some of its points:The Acting: I use the term loosely. I'm really not sure what anyone was on when this was made. I don't know if people didn't like each other, whether they were doing it for a bet or what. I have huge respect for all the actors: Angela Lansbury is a treasure (and is probably the only one to come out the film well), Elliot Gould tries his best with this nonsense and Cybill Shephard works her socks off to try to make the role something else. But somehow everyone ends up as though they know they're not in an danger of repeating a classic and so just walk through the roles. If you watch as Cybill and Elliot deliver their lines, whether or not it was ad libbing, lots of it just looks, sounds and is played like a rehearsal - and not a good one at that.The Story: It's a good mystery story, but it comes off as fake. There is nobody to care about, nobody to go along with. Cybill's character comes across as just a plain spoiled brat. What's with the million pounds bit? I know the rest of the casehave to believe she's a bit mad and that her story isn't true, but I really wanted HER to vanish, not Miss Froy! Updating it correctly so it has the Nazi references is good, but the Nazis are played as comic-book baddies, so it's just odd. And the English are comic book goodies too. Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael do the roles to perfection, but you do end up wanting to slap them.The Direction, Script, Production... I'm putting all the rest of what's wrong with this in the same place. Other reviews have called this a much maligned film, but it really does deserve maligning. There's almost nothing good about it, unless you count its comic relief potential. It's too bizarre for words - some of the scenes should not have made it into a finished project.This is just a bad film; everything's wrong with it from the stereotypes to the casting to the direction to the look of the whole thing. It would be nice to look at it now and forgive it its flaws, but there are just too many of them! Any film you can't watch without cringing doesn't deserve a good review.It gets 2 out of 10 from me because of its classic heritage and because of Angela Lansbury. Otherwise it wouldn't merit a score.

mockett-1 Its inevitable that this would be compared to Hitchcock's 1938 original but for me there are many pleasures to be had in this elegant comedy-thriller. Douglas Slocombe's Panavision photography is wonderful and the playing of all involved is beautifully poised. George Axelrod's reworking of Sidney Gilliat's screenplay adds a nice screwball touch with his one-liners and Ian Carmichael and Arthur Lowe as the cricket-obsessed British tourists add humanity to their chauvinistic bullishness. And as a self-confessed Angela Lansbury fan I of course relished her depiction of Miss Froy. On a big cinema screen this looks terrific.