There was no need for this movie to be made (but that is true for most remakes). 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". But it's clear that the intention here was to create a light comedy-mystery, not a suspense classic. (**1/2)
51 Reviews
Unfairly maligned, brilliant Lansbury
pawebster9 March 2006
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. I don't think we'll see too many films made this way again.
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. I don't think we'll see too many films made this way again.
The hindsight effect.
Coventry6 January 2024
It's an unpopular and even downright blasphemous idea to remake a great Alfred Hitchcock classic. It is now, and it definitely was in the late 70s, when the Master of Suspense himself was still alive. "The Lady Vanishes" flopped at the box office, received harshly negative reviews, was the symbolical last effort of Hammer Studios, and still isn't very appreciated nowadays based on the other user-comments around here.
And yet, I personally feel that "The Lady Vanishes" deserves a bit more recognition and praise, and this for the plain and simple fact that I found it very amusing. The plot is still compelling four decades later, the cast is tremendous, Cybill Shepard never looked more gorgeous than here in her white dress, and random conversations about cricket were never as funny.
Reverting to comparisons between this version and Hitchcock's classic is inevitable, though. The 1979 update is undeniably weaker for two reasons. First, because here there never is any doubt whether there was a Miss Froy who suddenly vanishes from the train departing from Bavaria. Shepard's character Kelly is very certain of herself and doesn't allow anyone to convince her otherwise, and it also doesn't help that we follow Miss Froy (Angela Lansbury) throughout the entire "Sound of Music" reminiscent opening credit sequences as she walks down a mountain and checks into a hotel. Secondly, there's the hindsight effect. What I mean by this is that Hitchcock's original was made and released in 1938; - slightly more than a year before the outbreak of WWII. Hitch made fabulous use of the contemporary political tensions and social unrest, and it greatly benefitted the atmosphere of his film. Anthony Page, like every other director since 1945, is forced to approach the plot with hindsight and that simply cannot be as intense.
Never mind the negativity, though, and enjoy "The Lady Vanishes" with all its misplaced comedy and unspectacular action. Cybill's best line: "despite your ridiculous haircut, I'm falling for you". Because, let's face it, Elliot Gould's hair is quite silly.
And yet, I personally feel that "The Lady Vanishes" deserves a bit more recognition and praise, and this for the plain and simple fact that I found it very amusing. The plot is still compelling four decades later, the cast is tremendous, Cybill Shepard never looked more gorgeous than here in her white dress, and random conversations about cricket were never as funny.
Reverting to comparisons between this version and Hitchcock's classic is inevitable, though. The 1979 update is undeniably weaker for two reasons. First, because here there never is any doubt whether there was a Miss Froy who suddenly vanishes from the train departing from Bavaria. Shepard's character Kelly is very certain of herself and doesn't allow anyone to convince her otherwise, and it also doesn't help that we follow Miss Froy (Angela Lansbury) throughout the entire "Sound of Music" reminiscent opening credit sequences as she walks down a mountain and checks into a hotel. Secondly, there's the hindsight effect. What I mean by this is that Hitchcock's original was made and released in 1938; - slightly more than a year before the outbreak of WWII. Hitch made fabulous use of the contemporary political tensions and social unrest, and it greatly benefitted the atmosphere of his film. Anthony Page, like every other director since 1945, is forced to approach the plot with hindsight and that simply cannot be as intense.
Never mind the negativity, though, and enjoy "The Lady Vanishes" with all its misplaced comedy and unspectacular action. Cybill's best line: "despite your ridiculous haircut, I'm falling for you". Because, let's face it, Elliot Gould's hair is quite silly.
No Need For Comparisons
jjgrimes-224 September 2011
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. There's no need to do so. Both have the same title but entirely different moods. This doesn't make one "better" or "worse" than the other. They just should be judged on their own merits.
Both are thrillers, one more somber and tense, and the latter version more of a melodramatic mystery with comedic touches.
What I would suggest is that the viewer simply watch both versions, recognizing the strong and weak points of each. 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".
Enjoy them both as different cinematic expressions and let others worry about comparisons.
Both are thrillers, one more somber and tense, and the latter version more of a melodramatic mystery with comedic touches.
What I would suggest is that the viewer simply watch both versions, recognizing the strong and weak points of each. 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".
Enjoy them both as different cinematic expressions and let others worry about comparisons.
I loved this film
Ilovehandbagsandshoes5 August 2006
I haven't seen the original but I watched this with 1 hour delay on two channels simultaneously, I was at home with a cold at the time and feeling very sorry for myself. 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. I would love a whole film on those two. Very affectionate look at English manners. ARTHUR LOWE MADE ME FORGET HOW ILL I FELT!
An elegant and witty remake ...
mockett-19 August 2006
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.
A Cybill Shepherd comedy, whereas Hitchcock's original was a mystery
ejchri5 February 2013
Remake of a British 1938 Michael Redgrave film with Dame Mae Witty and Margaret Lockwood. 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 political intrigues and treacheries of the years between the First and Second World Wars made a better basis for the 1938 film than the 1979 film had. Alfred Hitchcock had still been in Britain when his 1938 film was made. Hitchcock had a sure hand utilizing the looming dangers and unease of the time, just one year prior to Britain's actual 1939 entry into WWII. 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.
An indifferent remake of the Hitchcock classic!
JohnHowardReid10 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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. At least no attempt has been made to update the plot. Unfortunately, it just seems far more ridiculous in color and widescreen. The character changes are also no improvement. Admittedly, the original movie was a bit too talky, but this version positively wallows in inconsequential dialogue. Just about all the roles have been built up with more talk, but there is no corresponding increase in the action sequences, and the direction, alas, is totally unimaginative. Admittedly, some of the action is effectively managed, particularly the fight on board the train, but the climax is run of the mill. The director's main concern is obviously to bring every word of Axelrod's indifferent dialogue to viewers' ears. The actors are also hampered by the director's unimaginative use of close-ups which draw further attention to the weak script. Both Eliott Gould and Cybill Shepherd try hard to overcome all the drawbacks, but with not a great deal of success. In any case, this version is far to long for its thin plot. The colorful photography doesn't help either. It conveys about as much atmosphere and suspense as pink frosting on a butter cake. True, production values are good, but it's the story that counts, not the scenery.
Comedy, wchich is not funny, thriller which is not thrilling.
kathydecyk12 February 2019
Waste of time. The beginning sounds promising, however as the movie progresses it gets worse and worse. There was supposed to be a humour in it, which turned out to be silly and gone completely wrong. So disappointing
Doesn't quite have the charm of the original, but as a remake it is slick, beautifully shot and the music is wonderful.
TheLittleSongbird2 October 2009
I will admit I do prefer the Hitchcock original, however one thing I did prefer about the remake is that it is slicker. You may argue you shouldn't compare it to the Hitchcock original, and by the way Hitchock is my favourite director, but the thing is people do. 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. On the other hand, it is stylishly done, with stunning cinematography and lavish costumes. The story is an interesting concept, and I did find the film interesting and a pleasant watch overall. The music by the way is outstanding, very richly scored and the main theme sticks in your head for a very long time. The performances are mostly not at all bad. 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. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Stick with the Hitchcock original
gnovak-29 January 2019
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. Cybil Shepherd is amazingly terrible and completely unconvincing in the lead role. Do not waste your time renting and watching this flick. Find the original in the Criterion version and enjoy a great and suspenseful yarn that will live forever.
Excellent remake of an original Hitchcock
nicholas.rhodes16 December 2005
Much as I like and possess the DVD of the original Hitchcock version, this remake is a much better job. It avoids many of the tedious moments of the original film, especially during the first half hour or so in the hotel, and introduces a lot more humour. I mean Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael are nothing short of EXCELLENT, far funnier than the tedious idiots of the original. In addition we have better sound quality, superb picture quality, an extremely sexy Cybill Sheppard and a BEAUTIFUL sound track !! What more could you ask. I know little about the main mail character Elliot Gould and indeed found his performance the least interesting, but this is more than compensated for by the other performances. The Nazi Helmut played his role very well and rendered himself thoroughly dislikeable. And I have always loved Angela Lansbury in whatever rôle I have seen her. This is good quality cinematic entertainment from 1979, without special effects, something which is in very short supply in these initial years of the twenty first century. Thank God it's been issued on a DVD !
A decent remake
Midgegirl24 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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 >1938
1979 music >1938
Angela Lansbury >May Whitty
Arthur Lowe >Basil Radford
1979 characters far less obnoxious with foreigners than 1938
1979 political backdrop >1938
But
1938 editing & tight story-telling >1979
Margaret Lockwood >Cybill Shepherd
1938 Plotting & motivation >1979
1938 mystery & suspense >1979
All 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.
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 >1938
1979 music >1938
Angela Lansbury >May Whitty
Arthur Lowe >Basil Radford
1979 characters far less obnoxious with foreigners than 1938
1979 political backdrop >1938
But
1938 editing & tight story-telling >1979
Margaret Lockwood >Cybill Shepherd
1938 Plotting & motivation >1979
1938 mystery & suspense >1979
All 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.
Yikes!
artboy3418 February 2011
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.
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.
The wrong lady vanished! Someone should have stolen away with Cybill instead (and Elliott, too!)
Poseidon-329 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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. Unfortunately, a pair of anachronistic lead actors does everything but sink it. Shepherd plays an American heiress in the late 1930's, continually marrying and divorcing as part of a plan to glean her inheritance. From Bavaria, en route to London, she boards a train, still hung over from a night of revelry and wearing her evening gown. A kindly nanny (Lansbury) takes her under her wing, inviting her to lunch and seeing that she gets a nap during the long trip. When Shepherd awakes, Lansbury is gone and what's more, no one will admit to ever having seen her! Gould, a magazine photographer, begins to assist Shepherd, never quite sure if she has actually seen this woman or if she's hallucinating after a drunken night that continued into a tipsy morning. The duo is also aided by doctor Lom. Practically everyone else seems in on some grand conspiracy to cover up Lansbury's existence. Gould and Shepherd delve further and further into the mystery as the danger escalates. Despite her presence in other non-contemporary films such as "Daisy Miller" (another flop), Miss Shepherd has no business acting in a period piece. Though she does look nice in her dress, her manner is far too brusque and her carriage is far too contemporary to pull off playing someone from another era. Apart from that, her horrible, flat voice is completely at odds with the material and she simply can't muster up any enthusiasm for the proceedings. At one point, Gould accuses her of being hysterical and yet she's just as sedate and unexcited as she was before. Her makeup looks, at times, clownish, with all the highlighter applied under her eyes paired with bright blush. Gould, another actor who should only be cast in present day projects, gives into one concession for his period role. He parts his unruly hair and tries to mush it down. Otherwise he, too, is all wrong for this time and setting, though at least he attempts to give a performance. They share precious little chemistry and their misguided performances threaten at all times to derail the movie. Lansbury offers up a characterization that would soon become very familiar to viewers of "Murder She Wrote", as her work here and that of the early years of the TV series are quite similar. Lom is dependably solid. Old pros Lowe and Carmichael ably portray a couple of cricket-obsessed fussbudgets who alternately help and hinder the investigation. Harper and Runacre are a pair of secretive lovers. Nedeva does well in a small role as a nun. Some exquisitely beautiful Austrian scenery helps add a bit of luster to the film, but it's not enough to plug all the holes. While the plot line is creaky (and has been used in countless other films and TV shows), it would still be irresistible if not for the jarring presence of the two leads. Fans of theirs will be far more forgiving, but those who like a little class and authenticity in their films will be put off by their frequently obnoxious characterizations.
Endearing fodder for Cybill fans
tonycarter-mymz25 June 2017
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. The English pair of characters who only care about getting home to the cricket are a caricature to be sure, but earn their place. I could not say so much of the abducted Lansbury character, who seems to have graduated from the Dick Van Dyke school of accents. But it hardly matters, because her screen time is barely more than a cameo.
This is very much Cybill's movie. She looks more beautiful than any mortal woman has a right being. Her performance veering between ditzy and wide-eyed confusion, gives ample time for the viewer to luxuriate for scene after scene in her large eyes... and that decidedly flattering dress. Anybody who already formed an infatuation for her from her long-running role in Moonlighting will not be disappointed.
The movie keeps up a regular stream of witty patter, largely in the dialogue between her and Gould. The English pair of characters who only care about getting home to the cricket are a caricature to be sure, but earn their place. I could not say so much of the abducted Lansbury character, who seems to have graduated from the Dick Van Dyke school of accents. But it hardly matters, because her screen time is barely more than a cameo.
This is very much Cybill's movie. She looks more beautiful than any mortal woman has a right being. Her performance veering between ditzy and wide-eyed confusion, gives ample time for the viewer to luxuriate for scene after scene in her large eyes... and that decidedly flattering dress. Anybody who already formed an infatuation for her from her long-running role in Moonlighting will not be disappointed.
Shepherd miscasting kills the film
hugoruneofbrentford24 June 2021
This is an unnecessary remake of the Hitchcock original. The supporting cast are all excellent time served British actors and Gerald Harper, Ian Carmichael and Arthur Lowe bring a delicious energy to the proceedings.
Unfortunately they are onscreen far less than the two leads who are totally miscast.
Elliott Gould acts as though he has wandered in from another film and doesn't know that he is in a period piece but he can actually emote.
Cybill Shepherd is terrible. She is contemporary, which might be forgivable if she could actually act, but she switches from detached and dull to wild overacting without being convincing at either.
Watchable on a slow day but if you haven't seen it you haven't missed much.
Unfortunately they are onscreen far less than the two leads who are totally miscast.
Elliott Gould acts as though he has wandered in from another film and doesn't know that he is in a period piece but he can actually emote.
Cybill Shepherd is terrible. She is contemporary, which might be forgivable if she could actually act, but she switches from detached and dull to wild overacting without being convincing at either.
Watchable on a slow day but if you haven't seen it you haven't missed much.
A screwball comedy
chrisebull29 December 2018
Anthony Page is given a very unenviable task here with "The Lady Vanishes".
planktonrules6 May 2024
"The Lady Vanishes" (1979) is a remake of a famous Alfred Hitchcock movie of the same name. I really enjoyed the original film and cannot imagine needing to remake it. And, because of this, i felt a bit sorry for director Anthony Page...a real no-win situation because no matter how well he and the cast did, they'd always be compared to the original and come up short.
Because this is a remake, the film is naturally different in a few ways. As the original was set in 1938, just before WWII, the British were not too keen on having 'the enemy' in the film be German...and the British were trying to keep relationships going well with the Germans (a futile attempt, I know). But the remake came out long after the war and it made sense to be more honest and instead of calling the country by a fictitious name (like they did in the 1938 film), the film clearly is set in Bavaria, Germany. Another difference is that the two leads were no longer played by Brits but by Americans Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould...with Shepherd playing a kooky heiress and Gould playing a reporter.
Interestingly, Charters and Caldicott, two relatively minor characters who were twits in the original film who did nothing but talk about sports, DO appear in the remake as well. I think this is because these two goofy characters who debuted in the 1938 film...and were so popular that they were soon featured in other directors' movies as well as having their own TV series! They are, not surprisingly, played by different actors in the remake.
Amanda (Shepherd) is on a train going through Bavaria and one of the people who share the same compartment is an English governess, Miss Froy (Angela Lansbury). The pair strike up a friendship and share drinks together in the lounge. However, after falling asleep, when Amanda awakens, suddenly everyone in the same compartment tell her they have no idea WHO she is talking about when she askes about Miss Froy! And, Miss Froy is apparently gone. But others on the train also seem to be in on this conspiracy and they agree...there was no Miss Froy on the train and she and Amanda did NOT spend time together!! Obviously they are gaslighting Amanda...but why? And, where is the real Miss Froy? Out to help her in this quest is Robert Condon (Gould)...but folks keep insisting that there is no mystery and Amanda is just 'mistaken'!
Aside from Shepherd occasionally overplaying her character a tad (especially after the confrontation scene with the doctor), I found nothing to dislike about the movie. It's a very good remake, just not a necessary one. I still think you should instead see the 1938 version, though you couldn't do wrong seeing this 1979 one instead.
Because this is a remake, the film is naturally different in a few ways. As the original was set in 1938, just before WWII, the British were not too keen on having 'the enemy' in the film be German...and the British were trying to keep relationships going well with the Germans (a futile attempt, I know). But the remake came out long after the war and it made sense to be more honest and instead of calling the country by a fictitious name (like they did in the 1938 film), the film clearly is set in Bavaria, Germany. Another difference is that the two leads were no longer played by Brits but by Americans Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould...with Shepherd playing a kooky heiress and Gould playing a reporter.
Interestingly, Charters and Caldicott, two relatively minor characters who were twits in the original film who did nothing but talk about sports, DO appear in the remake as well. I think this is because these two goofy characters who debuted in the 1938 film...and were so popular that they were soon featured in other directors' movies as well as having their own TV series! They are, not surprisingly, played by different actors in the remake.
Amanda (Shepherd) is on a train going through Bavaria and one of the people who share the same compartment is an English governess, Miss Froy (Angela Lansbury). The pair strike up a friendship and share drinks together in the lounge. However, after falling asleep, when Amanda awakens, suddenly everyone in the same compartment tell her they have no idea WHO she is talking about when she askes about Miss Froy! And, Miss Froy is apparently gone. But others on the train also seem to be in on this conspiracy and they agree...there was no Miss Froy on the train and she and Amanda did NOT spend time together!! Obviously they are gaslighting Amanda...but why? And, where is the real Miss Froy? Out to help her in this quest is Robert Condon (Gould)...but folks keep insisting that there is no mystery and Amanda is just 'mistaken'!
Aside from Shepherd occasionally overplaying her character a tad (especially after the confrontation scene with the doctor), I found nothing to dislike about the movie. It's a very good remake, just not a necessary one. I still think you should instead see the 1938 version, though you couldn't do wrong seeing this 1979 one instead.
Film that never works out what it wants to be
Leofwine_draca30 August 2011
Hammer's lamentable remake of a Hitchcock classic and unsurprisingly the studio's last picture – at least until their recent reinvention as a purveyor of horror fare. THE LADY VANISHES is an odd film indeed, one that veers unevenly between comedy, mystery and thrills and never really succeeds in any of those fields: the comedy's unfunny, the mystery's obvious and the thrills muted. 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. I generally enjoy films set aboard trains, planes, boats etc. 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. It's left to the Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael to supply some genuine humour, although sadly their characters are ill-utilised and kept off-screen for the most part. THE LADY VANISHES marks an ignoble end for a once-fine studio and languishes today as a deservedly forgotten oddity.
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. I generally enjoy films set aboard trains, planes, boats etc. 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. It's left to the Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael to supply some genuine humour, although sadly their characters are ill-utilised and kept off-screen for the most part. THE LADY VANISHES marks an ignoble end for a once-fine studio and languishes today as a deservedly forgotten oddity.
Character based on....
myboyjack-8607216 February 2019
Anyone familiar with the life story of the former Hollywood actress and much married wealthy heiress blonde beauty Virginia Cherrill, and her back story will soon realise that Cybill Shepherd's character is based on her. They even look like twin sisters. Shepherd makes numerous references to facts from Cherrill's life, third marriage and even the family name that Shepherd uses is exactly that from Cherrill's third marriage, (though it's used only once in the film and not listed in the character list).
Not enough Angela!
Costu-220 April 1999
Ugh! What a mess! Only Angela Lansbury among the major cast members stands out. Cybill Shepherd seems to have the "madcap" part down, but too often she is merely silly rather than funny. As for Elliott Gould, he seems completely miscast, and acts as if he wandered in from another movie. This is hardly an improvement of -- or even an enlightening insight into -- the Hitchcock original. Only intermittently entertaining, but, by all means, see it if you're a Lansbury fan : she's wonderful!
Welcome Re-make of the Hitchcock Original
greene51510 August 2010
Angela Lansbury plays a nanny turned spy who is attempting to get back to Britain with some vital information. Set in Pre-WWII Germany this movie chronicles the trip of Cybill Shepherds character back to the UK to be reunited with her fiancé. On the train she befriends Ms. Froy and another American (played by Elliott Gould). However, things go awry when Ms. Froy seemingly vanishes into thin air and nobody on the train seems to have any memory of her. Is Shepherds character losing her marbles? - Gould certainly seems to think so...that is until he spots something out of the train window for a fleeting second. Its a superb story and very satisfying. I really enjoy this charming thriller.
Not as Bad as Thought
fkd196330 September 2008
I think the main problem with the film is the casting of the leads against the screenplay.
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.
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.
Remake of a classic. Missing nanny, and in this case missing acting.
Stevek-482 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
