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?

[–] carnival_of_song 10 years ago

I didn't like this film either. I too am a big admirer of Hitchcock's work but I thought The Lady Vanishes was dreadful and horribly disappointing and I can't believe the good reputation it enjoys. I can't help but wonder if it had been made by any other director, would people be so quick to heap praise on it?

[–] granitodiaz 10 years ago

Absolutely right

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 10 years ago

I'm bumping this old thread, because since it was originally posted, a remastered version of The Lady Vanishes has been released. I was fortunate enough to see it on a big screen with good sound back in the 1980s, then sometime around 2000, I rented a VHS to show to a friend, and the sound was awful. I'd seen it before, and I couldn't understand it. I have no trouble with British accents, having once gone to an international school, with a teacher from Manchester, and lots of classmates from all over the UK; I just had a very poor quality recording of the movie. I tried a DVD sometime around 2003 or 4, and it was still bad, but I got a Hitchcock collection in 2012, with digital remastering, and this film was perfectly clear.

As for the first 30 minutes: it contains a lot of references to current events, plus the antics of a popular comedy team, who are not well known to Americans now, so 21st century Americans don't understand or appreciate a lot of what is happening. It's what a Seinfeld episode is going to look like to people born after 2000, who are unfamiliar with any of the events referenced, or who Jerry Seinfeld is. Fast-forward to the part where they board the train, if you have to. You will miss a lot of comedy, and the fact that Lockwood and Redgrave's characters don't like each other to begin with, and the establishment of the cricket game obsession, but you will probably still be able to follow what is happening. Also, make sure you have a new DVD. Or try to catch it on TCM.

[–] ewaf58 10 years ago

You need to accept and relate to the characters in the film - it is a comedy suspense film after all.

I see your post is date 2005 - so hopefully by now you'll have had time to reflect on your rather less than intelligent post. I can only assume you were very young 10 years ago and didn't really know anything about films and what makes them great.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

What does age have to do with liking this film? What does the opening post have to do with the intelligence of the writer? It's only a movie. If people don't like it, then they don't like it.

Here is a radio play which has a similar plot, but frankly, the radio play is better IMHO:

https://ia600604.us.archive.org/13/items/OTRR_Suspense_Singles/Suspens e_431109_065_Cabin_B-13_-128-44-_27897_29m40s.mp3

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] ewaf58 10 years ago

Age can have everything to do with liking something. It can depend on which era you were bought up and how well you can then relate to another era.

For example fans of the Transformer franchise want non stop action with very little character development or pot.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

Yes, that would explain why I mostly watch 1930s mysteries, 1940s film noir, and 1960s comedies....and why I still think that the 1980s was a lousy decade for movies, TV shows, and film. My favourite actor died when I was in preschool.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

Maybe this radio play (with a similar plot) will be more enjoyable:

https://ia600604.us.archive.org/13/items/OTRR_Suspense_Singles/Suspens e_431109_065_Cabin_B-13_-128-44-_27897_29m40s.mp3

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] mrpinbert 10 years ago

Yeah i agree the first 20 minutes or so are a bore, but after that it gets quite fun.

If you save the world, We can do it in the *beep*