The Lady Vanishes

Plot synopsis:
English tourist Iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood) arrives at the "Gasthof Petrus" inn in the country of Bandrika, "one of Europe's few undiscovered corners". Iris is returning to Britain to marry a "blue-blooded cheque chaser", but an avalanche has blocked the railway line. The stranded passengers are forced to stay the night at the inn, including Charters and Caldicott, cricket enthusiasts who want to return to England to see the last days of the Test match.
That evening, Iris complains about loud folk music coming from the room above her. She has the guilty musician, Gilbert Redman (Michael Redgrave), thrown out of his room, only to have him move into hers, forcing her to capitulate.
Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty), a former governess and music teacher, listens to a tune performed by a folk singer under her window. Unseen by her, the singer is killed.
The next morning, before catching the train, Iris is hit on the head by a planter apparently aimed at Miss Froy, who then helps Iris onto the train. Also on board are Charters and Caldicott, Gilbert, a lawyer named Todhunter and his mistress "Mrs. Todhunter". As a result of her injury, Iris blacks out. After the train is moving, Iris wakes up in a compartment with Miss Froy and several strangers. She joins Miss Froy in the dining car for tea. Unable to be heard above the train noise, the elderly lady writes her name on the window with her finger. Soon after, they return to their compartment, where Iris falls asleep.
When Iris awakens, Miss Froy has vanished. The strangers in her compartment say they know nothing about an English lady. Even Todhunter, who spoke with Miss Froy earlier, pretends not to remember her in an attempt to avoid any possible scandal. Iris searches, but cannot find her. She meets up with Gilbert, who agrees to help. Dr. Hartz (Paul Lukas), a brain surgeon, says Iris may be suffering from concussion-related hallucinations. Charters and Caldicott also claim not to remember Miss Froy, because they are afraid a delay would make them miss the cricket match.
Another lady appears, dressed exactly like Miss Froy, but Iris and Gilbert continue to search. They are attacked by a knife-wielding magician, Signor Doppo. They start to suspect that Dr. Hartz's patient, whose face is covered by bandages, is Miss Froy. Dr. Hartz tells his fellow conspirator, a British woman dressed as a nun, to drug Iris and Gilbert. Then, convinced they will soon be asleep, Hartz admits to them that he is involved in the conspiracy. The false nun does not follow Hartz's instructions out of loyalty to her fellow countrywoman; Gilbert and Iris escape, free Miss Froy and replace her with one of the conspirators.
When the train stops near the border, Dr. Hartz discovers the switch. He has part of the train diverted onto a branch line, where soldiers await. Gilbert and Iris inform their fellow passengers of what is happening. The train pulls to a stop and a uniformed soldier requests that they all accompany him. They knock him out and take his gun. Another soldier fires, wounding Charters in the hand, and a shootout begins.
During the gunfight, Miss Froy reveals to Gilbert and Iris that she is a British agent who must deliver a message to the Foreign Office in Whitehall. The message is encoded in the tune that the folk singer sang. Gilbert memorises the tune. With his help, Miss Froy slips away into the forest. Todhunter attempts to surrender, waving a white handkerchief, and is shot dead. Gilbert and Caldicott then commandeer the locomotive, and the group escape across the border.
In London, Charters and Caldicott discover the Test Match has been abandoned. Iris jumps into a cab with Gilbert in order to avoid her fiancé, and Gilbert kisses her. They arrive at the Foreign Office, but Gilbert is unable to remember the vital tune. Then he hears the melody on the piano; they are joyfully reunited with Miss Froy.

Tags: comedy, intrigue

Review:
The original is a classic and generally considered the best of Hitchcock's early British films.
But if you forget about the comparisons and let this remake stand on its own, it's actually pretty decent: good-looking, beautifully scored, and well-cast, even in the secondary roles.
The two leads are likably goofy (they do bring a 70's flavor to these 30's characters, which may or may not be to your taste), and male viewers will be glad to know that Cybill Shepherd spends the entire running time wearing a white dress that reveals her sexy back, arms and shoulders.
If I can point one flaw in this movie, it's that the script doesn't build enough ambiguity - even people who don't know the story won't think for a moment that it could all be "in Cybill's head".
There's a strong tendency to compare Hitchcock's version of "The Lady Vanishes" with the 1979 version starring Elliot Gould, Cybill Shepherd, and Angela Lansbury.
Both are enjoyable, but to interject a personal note, I tend to lean toward this 1979 version for its tone that's more like other mystery films such as "Charade" or "North By Northwest".
The story is silly -- well, preposterous really, but it's great fun.I agree that the Shepherd and Gould are a bit tiresome and overdone, but in fact, on the whole, they're fun too.The best feature of the film is Angela Lansbury.
She is brilliant as the nanny, catching every nuance with perfection, and should have had some kind of award for her performance.The cricket fans are good and Gerald Harper is also convincing and chilling as the hard-hearted adulterer.It is refreshing to see a film where there are no computer effects, and where real locations are used.
Anyway, if you would just put the two leads aside for a moment (although Eliot Gould was SO cute in the movie and Cybil Shepperd did the visual pun of Marilyn Monroe on the air vent very well when she gets out of the train...) The thing I really liked about this film were the characters of Charters and Caldicott - they made me laugh hysterically - there they are drinking tea - understating this understating that - then suddenly.....they are really terrific minor characters.
A Cybill Shepherd comedy, whereas Hitchcock's original was a mystery.
The 1979 version, done as a Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould vehicle, pushes mainly its comedic/farcical elements instead of it being s legitimate mystery itself.
The 1979 film isn't rotten but it simply doesn't hold up when weighed against Hitchcock's original.
If you watch the 1979 movie, do so expecting a comedy not a mystery, and do so before you ever have seen the Hitchcock version..
Much as I like and possess the DVD of the original Hitchcock version, this remake is a much better job.
Set in Pre-WWII Germany this movie chronicles the trip of Cybill Shepherds character back to the UK to be reunited with her fiancé.
This film is just a horrible remake of the classic 1938 original by Alfred Hitchcock which contains a first class cast from top to bottom and superior editing and cinematography.
I only wished this remake would have done the vanishing!Awful remake of the classic Hitchcock suspense thriller that is marred by the idiotic casting of Gould and Shephard, who spend most of their time turning the mystery into laughs.
Lansbury breathes the most life into the film as Miss Froy..
When she enquires, no one else can remember any such woman being on the train  did she imagine it or is something more sinister afoot?Of course it isn't rubbish but no matter how "OK" this film it, it simply isn't comparable to the much, much better Hitchcock original  sadly a statement that I consider true of all aspects of the film.
The lack of tension was a real surprise to me and the film failed to draw out the mystery  of course I knew it was not in Amanda's head but I do when I watch the original as well  this familiarity doesn't totally account for the lack of tension in the film generally, that is more to do with the lack of urgency and the starry feel of the film generally.
Viewers who have not seen the original might enjoy it but anyone coming to it second will struggle to find much added value in this retread.Gould and Shepherd both overegg their performances and lean too heavily on the side of humour without doing enough on the side of the mystery.
The rest of the cast however, just fill in the background without too much effort or style.Overall this is a distracting and OK film in its own right but I simply cannot see any reason why any viewer would find this a more worthwhile venture than the original.
In every way, from direction and tone through to performances and cinematography, the film is a poor photocopy of the original.
If you are a weary critic and insist that a remake of the original be more of the same but better, you will be wasting your time on this because it's played more kooky and comic than a suspenseful thriller.The movie keeps up a regular stream of witty patter, largely in the dialogue between her and Gould.
Both movies are good, in different ways.Second, I love Elliot Gould, usually, but in this film he's not good.
Under-appreciated as it is, this remake of Hitchcock's 1938 classic truly embodies my idea of how a well-crafted and entertaining light movie should be.
I'm sure Hitchcock himself wouldn't have done it better as a self-remake.
The actors like Herbert Lom and Angela Lansbury gave an excellent performance.
It would be wrong of me to say that this film is better than the original 1936 Alfred Hitchcock version, because both films do have their own merits.Admittedly, this version is in colour and the inevitability of a Second World War is played more topically, but one must remember that in 1938, the prospect of another war was something that was still tentative and the Munich Agreement on the 29th September of that year would have provided some hope with appeasement - controversial as it would have been.It was a good idea to change the delightful performance of the lovely Margaret Lockwood to a brash, excitable and more feminist character in the guise of an American heiress (Cybill Shepherd).
Changing the male lead to that of American war correspondent (Elliot Gould), instead of a British musician researching European folk compositions, was also a good idea, even though the part in the 1938 film was smartly played by Michael Redgrave, in his debut film role.The rest of the casting is very much true to the 1938 version, and all the parts were played beautifully, especially Herbert Lom and Daphne Anderson, playing the Nazi doctor and the politically motivated Baroness.Also, I should not forget Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael as the characters of Charters and Caldicot, respectively, who were originally played by Basil Radford and Naughton Wayne in the 1938 version.
The character was originally played in the 1938 version by the ever-reliable character actor, Cecil Parker.All in all, this was a very good and exciting film and I always enjoy it every time I watch it..
It doesn't help that the lead actress – Cybill Shepherd – is horribly miscast, giving a performance so awful that some viewers may turn off because of her alone.Then again, Shepherd may not be entirely at fault – I struggle to think of an alternative actress who could have brought her shrill, screechy character to life.
but this one never makes good use of the location and the constant moving between carriages and compartments becomes repetitive in the extreme (although a late stage train-climbing stunt sequence is breathtakingly good).Elliott Gould seems distinctly embarrassed by his presence here and can do nothing with his character, while Angela Lansbury seems to think she's still in BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS and gives a patronising turn.
Someone has commented here that you should not compare this film to the Hitchcock directed original as they are 'different' and 'comparisons are pointless'!
Their comment that they are good in different ways and rating this as 10/10 are extraordinary claims for quality in this film that most others as well as myself think are way off the mark.This film lacks all the charm, wit and directorial genius of the original.
Every character in Hitchcock's film is well developed as well as charmingly and brilliantly acted.
All actors are far inferior in this version as is the director.The original has all the camera shots, suspense building scenes and clever touches you would expect from Hitchcock.
Cybill Shepherd gives her usual acting performance (very poor), Angela Lansbury is, frankly, second rate and the rest of the cast seem embarrassed by the awful script.
At the time that the original was made film makers could get away with this sort of plot, and Hitchcock could make it (almost) believable, but these days a little more is required.
It's been a little while since I saw this, but I felt like Cybill Shepherd and Elliott let down our side.
This is a great film, everything about it is great and it is bound to be as it is an Alfred Hitchcock remake.
It full of suspense, its funny, thrilling, the direction is good, the sets and locations are excellent, the cast are excellent, Cybill Shepherd is funny and great as her hysterical character Amanda Kelly,  Elliott Gould is great as Robert Condon and Angela Lansbury is perfect as the kidnapped Miss Froy!
Doesn't quite have the charm of the original, but as a remake it is slick, beautifully shot and the music is wonderful..
I will admit I do prefer the Hitchcock original, however one thing I did prefer about the remake is that it is slicker.
The remake doesn't quite have the charm of its original, and I do think it is to do with the fact that the screenplay at times is weak, the director is no Hitchcock and the film does meander in the last twenty minutes.
Angela Lansbury is marvellous as Miss Froy, despite her limited screen time.
Herbert Lom also impresses as usual, and while Cybill Sheppard has given better performances, she did look absolutely beautiful.
In fact the only actor who disappointed was Elliot Gould, he had the handsome screen presence but he didn't quite convince, and just for the record, his dialogue for me was the weakest of the film.
All in all, slick, underrated and well done remake, but if I were to compare the two, I would say the original was better.
An older lady (Angela Lansbury) disappears on a train in Europe before World War II after befriending an American girl (Cybill Shepherd), who searches for her with help from another American on board (Elliott Gould).I just watched both versions back-to-back (apparently there's a 2013 TV version too) and found this remake to be a charming romp, fun and scenic and fairly true to the original.Was it just fate or what, that they cast Angela Lansbury as an English nanny?
This is one of the dumbest movies i've ever seen, including the hitchcock original...the part you don't see until the reveal is just as stupid ...i can't stand angela lansbury so i was happy to see her disappear ...
I've seen Hitchcock's original and did not expect much for the remake.
Gould is too old and somewhat fey and Shepherd is acting as though she were in a Carole Lombard film.
The leads in the original film gave the roles more depth; perhaps it is also the fault of the screenplay.The overall production values are good and the supporting cast is wonderful especially Lansbury, of course, and Ian Carmichael--Lord Peter Wimsey in scenes with Cybill Shepherd!.I would buy this on DVD if available..
Almost all the ingredients are present for this to be a charming and colorful remake of an Alfred Hitchcock classic: stunning scenery, lovely music and talented behind-the-scenes craftspeople.
There's no need to get excited when you see George Axelrod listed in the credits as the screenwriter, for this is a very tepid remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic which comes off second best in all respects.
This movie, as the remake of a classic, could have been a brilliant success, such as "Murder on the Orient Express," and even the spoofy-but-still-compelling "Silver Streak." But the finished product turns out to be more of a comedy than the suspenseful "Who-Dunnit," like the original masterpiece this was supposed to have remade.Blame the absurd casting of Elliot Gould, and the horrid direction Sybil Sheppard was given..
He, in no way, even begins to fill those shoes.The European anti-American sentiments are well displayed and conveyed here, and Sheppard's character does little to change that.While this is still a fun, suspenseful film, it is nothing like the original in that it captures none of the fantastic suspense lent by Hitchcock's direction.
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.
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.
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.
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..
The film is a remake of a classic, which wasn't that great in the first place, but this is simply dire.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Granted that probably only Alfred Hitchcock could successfully replicate one of his films, this remake works in its own way.
I think that the pacing of this work is better than that of the original.
A rather bad remake and Hammer film.
On the other hand, the new material is fairly bad so perhaps I was spared from being even worse than it was.I like Elliot Gould but this isn't one of his better performances.
Cybill Shepherd is dreadful as Amanda Kelly, the "much married American heiress." She spends the entire film either speaking in a monotone, rushing her lines or screeching at the top of her lungs.
Incidentally, I think that Lom - who played the title character in "The Phantom of the Opera" - is the only Hammer veteran to appear in their final film for 29 years.
Angela Lansbury is good as Mrs Froy but, at 53, she was at least 15 years too young for the role.Alfred Hitchcock was still alive when the film was released.