A man in London tries to help a counter-espionage Agent. But when the Agent is killed, and the man stands accused, he must go on the run to save himself and stop a spy ring which is trying to steal top secret information.
Johnnie Aysgarth is a handsome gambler who seems to live by borrowing money from friends. He meets shy Lina McLaidlaw on a train while trying to travel in a first class car with a third class ticket. He begins to court Lina, and before long, they are married. It is only after the honeymoon that she discovers his true character, and she starts to become suspicious when Johnnie's friend and business partner, Beaky, is mysteriously killed.Written by
Col Needham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cary Grant did not warm up to Joan Fontaine, finding her to be temperamental and unprofessional. See more »
In the final scene as Johnnie and Lina drive back home, it is clear from the shot of them from behind that doubles have been used and the two characters in the scene are not Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant. See more »
Oh, I beg your pardon. Was that your leg? I had no idea we were going into a tunnel. I thought the compartment was empty.
See more »
A colorized version of the film was produced. It has been available on VHS (Turner Home Entertainment) in NTSC format for a while. A dual black & white/colorized Region-2 DVD version has been released in 2003 by Universal in PAL format. See more »
Cary Grant (Johnnie Aysgarth) was 37 when this was released and perhaps at the pinnacle of his sexual charm (but not at the pinnacle of his career by a long shot); and Joan Fontaine (Lina Aysgarth--not "Linda," as the video jacket mistakenly has it), 24, was fresh from her very fine performance in Rebecca (1940) alongside Laurence Olivier, also directed by Alfred Hitchcock, for which he garnered his only Best Picture Oscar. I don't think this film is nearly as good. It is saved from being something close to annoying at times only by the star power of the leads and a fine supporting cast, especially Nigel Bruce (best known perhaps as Dr. Watson in a number of Sherlock Holmes films) as Cary Grant's friend "Beaky."
The problem with the film lies partly with the casting of Cary Grant, although not in his performance as such. He was seen as such a valuable property by the studio that the proper ending of the film was considered inappropriate and so it was changed. Along the way we see a lot of mixed foreshadowing so it is impossible to tell whether his character is that of a loving husband who is a bit of a rogue or a cold-blooded murderer who married Lina for her inheritance and intends to kill her. We can see how the latter possibility might not work so well since she was only getting a subsistence allowance from the will of her father who disapproved of the marriage. And there are all those dark scowls that Grant manufactures, somewhat awkwardly I must say, to keep us in doubt. What is apparent is that Hitchcock had one ending in mind and then had to change it and wasn't able to redo some of the earlier scenes that worked better with the old ending.
At any rate, Joan Fontaine is very good, lovely, graceful and focused. With this performance she went one up on her older sister Olivia de Havilland by winning the Best Actress Oscar. And it is a bit of a spicy treat to see Cary Grant as something of a heavy, at least part of the time. For most of us, who have seen him in many films, his character has always been sterling.
I must also note that some of the production seems a bit unnatural. Grant wears his suit and tie all buttoned up even when visiting Fontaine in their bedroom (carrying the infamous glass of milk, which I understand was backlighted with a bulb inside the glass to make it almost glow). Fontaine's Lina appears mousey and bookish at the beginning (it is suggested that she was in danger of being an old maid!) but later develops a more sophisticated style. And I don't think Hitchcock or Grant really gave her enough cause for the sort of fear she experienced. The final scene with its quick about-face was not entirely convincing or conclusive either.
Contemporary audiences might wince at the plodding direction by Hitchcock. They might even wonder why he decided to make a movie from such a familiar and lightly plotted tale not far removed psychologically from a romance novel. But Hitchcock always erred on the side of giving the mass audience what he thought they wanted. What they wanted here was Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine together romantically with some mystery and doubt along the way.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
66 of 86 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this