MovieChat Forums > The Lady Vanishes (1938) Discussion > I am still in shock - of how boring this...

I am still in shock - of how boring this movie is

posted 20 years ago by PiranianRose
110 replies | jump to latest

Alright folks. I am a great admirer of Hitch. I have seen quite a few of his classics and all but one have been at least satisfying (most of them were fantastic indeed). Most recently, I tried to watch "Lady Vanishes" because some hail it as his best from the British period, and the premise of a disappearing lady sounded promising. Unfortunately--and I really tried--I couldn't get past the first 30 minutes or so. I tried very hard to not turn it off, but it was impossible. What happened? nothing, absolutely nothing. The plot probably moved an inch forward. The only intriguing thing is that the musician on the street got murdered. Also, I had trouble understanding the English. I turned the volume as loud as my speakers had, but I still couldn't understand what they were saying, and the DVD apparently assumes just because there is English dialog, everyone that understands English should understand it. They forgot how different English from Britain can sound to a Midwestern American brought up in the Orient.

Anyway, I still don't want to completely disregard this film from one of my favorite auteurs. So I am asking you: if I absolutely hated the first 30 minutes of this movie, thinking it is boring as heck, does it get more interesting?

[–] hsemhsem 19 years ago

It does get better and better throughout, but I thought the beginning sequence was pretty dam good anyway. It's not funny, but it's definitely entertaining, and sets up the rest of the film very well. I never had any trouble with what they are saying, although admittedly I am from England. The only slight problem is that the bit with the dancing makes me cringe for no real reason, but that is barely worth mentioning.

The Lady Vanishes is currently my #11

"...and Moe, you'll be Cue Ball."
"You're an idiot."

[–] hurricanepictures426 19 years ago

if you don't like the first 30 minutes why even watch the rest. The movie all ready isn't your kind of movie. Keep in mind this movie is from the 1930s. so over 70s years later it might not meet your expectations of what is an entertaining film. I'm sure most of the people who think this is Hitchcocks best british film don't think that DESPITE the first half hour. I still prefer the 39 steps but i didn't find this film boring in the least. and their english accents really aren't that hard to follow. Ive heard alot worse. Maybe buy some q-tips

[–] Vraiment 19 years ago

I was almost hypontised the first time i watched it, I loved all of it. The end is better I suppose but the beginning is bloody good too.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 19 years ago

If you think about it, Hitch purposely made the slow start in conjunction to how a train starts: slow at first, picks up the pace, and then roaringly speed up like mad... And that's how the film goes, slow, to picking up pace, to dizzyingly mad with the gunfights and all... I love this film...

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bonbk 19 years ago

If you're going to put a spoiler in your comments you should write SPOILER in your title or at least before you give information crucial to a movie. Especially a mystery!!!

[–] BloodBang 19 years ago

if you meant me...

yes, sorry :-(

[–] bonbk 19 years ago

It's OK.
I know not to read these boards typically before seeing a movie, but I was watching it and having trouble getting into it, saw this thread and hoped it would encourage me to, which it did, and I ended up enjoying it.

[–] info-7385 19 years ago

You must watch the whole movie. After the initial 30 mins or so in the Hotel, the plots gets much better on the train. I have seen it loads of times and recently bought the video and watched it again. Please give it another chance, i know you will change your mind.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hmmfood 19 years ago

First, I liked this movie a lot. I'm amazed that no one seems to have mentioned the sexual innuendoes in the first 30 minutes of the film. Did anyone catch the scene where the waiter or bellhop brings the tray into the girls' room? One of the girls (Margaret Lockwood?) is standing on a table in what appears to be a slip and stockings. The waiter places the tray with a long-necked bottle of wine with a cork protruding right under her. It looked exactly like an erect phallus. Also, the scene where the maid came back to her room and the 2 guys who were in bed together and one of them had his shirt off? Hitchcock, from what I recall, was famous for these sexual metaphors in his movies (i. e. the train going in the tunnel at the end of "North by Northwest").

hmmfood

[–] Wakanohana 18 years ago

hmmfood wrote: "I'm amazed that no one seems to have mentioned the sexual innuendoes in the first 30 minutes of the film."

I've only seen it once, on cable last night, but I noticed a great number of amusing little asides, several of them of a sexual nature. When Gilbert (Michael Redgrave) offers his assistance to Iris (Margaret Lockwood), he remarks that his father taught him always to come to the aid of women in trouble: "So he married my mother."

Almost every line between the cricket fans, Caldecott and Charters, is funny. And those two are so gay.
Nathan Lane would fit right in with them.

Clearly not everyone was supposed to be funny -- some of them were quite nasty. But that's okay, murder mysteries usually involve at least a few characters who aren't charming and amusing.

[–] lucasisbored 19 years ago

what's with the "first 30 minutes" issue???

films were just paced differently then...

watch the first 30 minutes of psycho and tell me that's riveting!

LPE x

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fast_fierce_and_funny 19 years ago

>Not for you!
>And it's not "Hitch", it's Hitchcock.

Hitchcock has long been referred to as "Hitch" by fans. In fact, if memory serves, he actually signed his notes and letters "Hitch," though I'll have to go back to my copy of "The Dark Side of Genius" to confirm the latter point. Perhaps someone else can confirm/refute this assertion?

At any rate, Hitchcock was/is often referred to as "Hitch" by those who worked with him, so I can't see what's wrong with someone else doing it. [shrugs]

"Hitch is a gentleman farmer who raises goose flesh." ~ Ingrid Bergman

[–] fast_fierce_and_funny 19 years ago

[That isn't Lockwood in the frame enlargement, it's Linden Travers (is that her name?) as the European mistress to the...is he the Minister of Propaganda they keep referring to??]

You know what? You're right! Shame on me for missing that one...

I looked back and it looks like Linden Travers played "Mrs." Margaret Todhunter. Mr. Todhunter was a stuffy English barrister played by Cecil Parker. Linden Travers was his mistress, hence the "Mrs." being in quotation marks.

I believe the screen capture was taken from the part of the picture when...

Spoilers.........Spoilers.............Spoilers.........Spoilers Ahoy!

...Gilbert and Iris are looking for Miss Froy and, finally realizing that her "husband" isn't worth shielding from scandal, Linden Travers' character breaks down and tells them that she did remember seeing Iris with Miss Froy after all. Her "husband" had initally denied it because he didn't want attention drawn to the fact that he was traveling with a woman who was not his wife.

Anyway, thanks for setting me straight. All this chatter makes me want to see the movie all over again.