Opiniones de usuarios

This film, based on a James Hilton novel, is not often seen these days. In part, the material Christopher Isherwood extracted from the book doesn't make a good movie. As directed by W. S. Van Dyke, the film seems to have been sabotaged by its star, Robert Montgomery, who made no secret he didn't want to be in the picture. It's a shame because the rest of the players are evidently acting in a different movie.

The melodrama has some interesting things going for it. First there is the luminous appearance of Ingrid Bergman in her third Hollywood film. Also, George Sanders has one of the best roles he ever played in the movies. Both Ms. Bergman and Mr. Sanders are the reason for watching. Lucile Watson, Oscar Homolka and Philip Merivale, among others, make great contributions to the film.

While this is not by any means a horrible film, it could have been improved if only Mr. Montgomery, a welcome presence in any movie, would have done a better job inter acting with the rest and following direction.

One of James Hilton's lesser novels got a lesser production from MGM with his Day Of Reckoning becoming Rage In Heaven. This has to be one of the few instances where a psychiatrist saves the day.

I think it ironic that Robert Montgomery got cast in the lead here against his usual type. It must have been an easier sell to Louis B. Mayer to cast him after having proved his acting chops in Night Must Fall. Playing another charming maniac got Montgomery an Academy Award nomination in that film. So Mayer having been convinced was less reluctant to have him cast here.

When we first meet Montgomery we find him inside an insane asylum in France and while his doctor, Oscar Homolka is discussing his case, Montgomery up and escapes from the place. Making it back to Great Britain he goes back to his mother's place and Lucille Watson as the mother welcomes him, not knowing of his hiatus in the booby hatch.

She's got a nice new secretary/companion in Ingrid Bergman and Montgomery likes her lot. She likes George Sanders his good friend and incidentally it was Sander's character name under which Montgomery was in the asylum under.

Montgomery woos and wins Ingrid, he's now running Watson's factory and that makes him a big man and no doubt helps his cause with Ingrid. Sanders is now working for him. But this Othello has his own Iago inside him provoking the green eyed monster without any outside provocation.

When Bergman turns to Sanders after one of Montgomery's inexplicable rages, Montgomery conceives a diabolical plot to frame Sanders for his own murder. That's the best part of the film, there's no way Sanders could have or should have gotten out of it. Especially without Montgomery to be questioned.

I liked the fact that both Montgomery and Sanders were playing against type. Sanders is a good guy, one of the few films he's not working any angles. Ingrid was steadfast and loyal, her part's not that much of a stretch for her talents.

I won't give away the ending, but let me say it was way too contrived and coincidental. Rage In Heaven does not belong in the top tier of films for any of the three leads.

I guess I'll be the resident moron of this film's comment section. I liked Rage in Heaven. It was entertaining, interesting, and involving.

I realize Robert Montgomery phoned in his role. His complete detachment makes the character evil rather than sick, and one cannot feel sympathy for him, if we were ever supposed to. The biggest problem is that his flat line readings and cool demeanor make it unbelievable that Bergman married a man so completely lacking in self-esteem, charm, and ardor.

The very young, pre-superstar Ingrid Bergman is marvelous - very fresh and vibrant in the beginning, her personality becoming more somber after a short time being married to Montgomery. And who can blame her. George Sanders is excellent, his portrayal possessing all the charm and passion Montgomery lacks.

As far as this plot being contrived, perhaps, but it was also clever. The original ending of "Fatal Attraction" was based on the same idea. Seen in today's modern perspective "Rage in Heaven" is most interesting. The obsession that Phillip had for Wade - very bizarre indeed!

A somber-hued melodrama whose psychology is more compelling than its dramaturgy, Rage in Heaven sounds many of the minor-key motifs and dark timbres that would shortly coalesce into the noir cycle. Its most striking aspect has to be its acceptance of its disturbed central character as a given, without attempting to supply a neat, reassuring `explanation.'

The story – set in England, for no good reason – opens with a teasing prelude at a French insane asylum. But soon, in London, we meet up with Robert Montgomery as he meets up with old chum George Sanders and whisks him off to the country house of Montgomery's widowed mother (Lucile Watson), who in ailing health has retained the services of a companion (Ingrid Bergman). Though Bergman and Sanders generate some electricity, when he departs she marries Montgomery. This proves ill-advised.

Montgomery, who reluctantly has taken charge of the family's steel works, shows himself to be not only incompetent, irrationally jealous and vindictive, but also self-loathing, desperately insecure, and (as it turns out, like his father) suicidal. He requires unquestioned obedience, even at the risk of running his business into the ground – or poisoning his marriage. He lures back Sanders in order to validate his suspicions of an affair between his wife and his best friend but, when no evidence emerges, devises a fiendish plot to ruin all their lives. His plans almost succeed, but for an eleventh-hour deus ex machina, in the person of the head of that sanitarium in the outskirts of Paris.

Though somewhat cleverly contrived, the ending remains a contrivance yet doesn't quite invalidate the movie's dark vision (perhaps owing more to Christopher Isherwood, who wrote the screenplay, than to James Hilton's novel). Montgomery elects to play a charming villain, as he did in Night Must Fall, perhaps unsure of just how to depict a deranged psyche (he wasn't far off the mark). Sanders gets wasted as a square-rigger, which was never his long suit.

That leaves the radiant Bergman, two years before Casablanca assured her stardom, handed the thankless world of the loyal, longanimous wifey. In this flawed but unsettling and precocious melodrama, it's she who utters the final benediction. That benediction lingers in the mind as an enlightened touch – and a far cry from the black/white mentality of today's thrillers, which view psychological aberration as just a more heinous kind of evil, and so a further justification for triumphantly exterminating the evildoers.

''Rage in Heaven'' wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't good either...... I'm not sure, if it's because of the story, or because of the actors performances...... Ingrid Bergman was fine...... You could tell, that she tried to make the best of it, but there was NO chemistry at all, between her and Robert Montgomery, George Sanders...... Montgomery looks tired, and seems to be sleepwalking through the movie...... He downplayed his mentally disturbed character too much...... He seemed more alert, towards the last half of the film...... From what I read, in Ingrid Bergman's autobiography, she said, that Montgomery was forced to do this movie, so he told her, that he won't act..... That probably explains his bored looks in the movie...... Overall, could've been a better movie, if they rearranged the cast or something.......

I might be in the minority here, but I really liked this movie. George Sanders, playing against type, was quite believable as Ward Andrews, a decent guy in love with his best friend's wife, but too noble to pursue her. Ingrid Bergman, as Stella, plays the conflicted wife very well. She loves her husband, but as he becomes more paranoid and jealous, you see her suffering from the emotional abuse he heaps on her. But the real surprise of this movie is Robert Montgomery. According to Ingrid Bergman, he told her he planned on phoning in his performance because he was angry with MGM for putting him in this film. If he did, it was a brilliant decision. His underplaying and detachment gave him the air of someone who was convinced of the rationality of his increasingly irrational behavior. I never thought I'd say this about Robert Montgomery, but he gave me the kind of creeps in this movie that I got from Anthony Perkins in Psycho.

This psychological thriller involved a leading man who was brooding over his perceived mistreatment by MGM (Robert Montgomery), and a director, Woody Van Dyke, who was having a difficult physical and emotional time of it to the point that two other directors had to get involved. And yet it worked overall, although I feel it could have pulled together better than it did with a more cohesive vision.

Montgomery had said he was not going to act in this one, just read his lines. Yet his detached demeanor actually works as he is portraying Phillip Monrell, a man whose paranoia comes out of nowhere. He is the charming Robert Montgomery character of the high society comedies for the first 30 minutes of the film. And then becomes - without explanation - very paranoid. He has been overseas, only to return to England, meet, and marry his ailing mother's paid companion, Stella Bergen (Ingrid Bergman), in a whirlwind courtship. Ingrid you have to stop marrying in haste! You got lucky with Victor Lazslo in "Casablanca", but not this time!

And Monrell is most of all jealous of his long time "friend", engineer Ward Andrews (George Sanders). He begins to think his wife and Ward are having an affair. And this seems laughable as Sanders is for once portraying somebody who is admirable and completely guileless. Or is he??

There is a mystery patient at an insane asylum who escapes at the beginning of the film. You never see his face. And this never comes up until the end when a doctor there, Oscar Homolka, shows up at a crucial juncture. He is a very welcomed presence as he assaults a shopkeeper with his umbrella so an important phone call can be made.

Definitely worth watching. But there is just an odd lack of chemistry between the leads.

Robert Montgomery marries Ingrid Bergman. Ingrid Bergman is friends with Montgomery best friend George Sanders. Add Salty Montgomery-mother played by Gladys Cooperish Lucile Watson and eccentric psychiatrist played by Oskar Homolka, add doses of psychosis and jealousy, stir, let boil and you are left with a huge stew-pot of "Rage in Heaven".

I had a little trouble with the amount of rummaging, interviewing, and flying to France done by Bergman and Homolka in the 12 hours left to Sanders- Maybe all this stuff could get done in 12 hours, but was a flight to France even possible in 1941? Other than this slight problem, I love this great Pre-Noir directed by Woody Van Dyke from novel by James Hilton. Sometimes a supporting character makes a dent, and in this case it's Oskar Homolka - I've seen Homolka play everything from old professors to Red-Chinese Generals, and this film is just another of his great character roles. Not to be underrated also is Aubrey Mather (Professor Peagram from "Ball of Fire") as Clark the Butler.

James Hilton was not a great novelist, but he was a popular one in the 1930s and 1940s, and two of his books have managed to become minor classics. Both also were the basis of popular films: LOST HORIZON and GOODBYE MR. CHIPS. But, oddly enough, they were not the only Hilton novels that made it to the screen, nor the only two that became classic films. RANDOM HARVEST can be added to his novels that became film classics. And he also wrote his "Crippen" novel, WE ARE NOT ALONE (which starred Paul Muni and Dame Flora Robson), and this film, RAGE IN HEAVEN. In story it actually resembles RANDOM HARVEST a bit: In that film Ronald Colman is an amnesiac from World War I who escapes from an asylum, and eventually turns out to be the head of a large industrial empire. In RAGE IN HEAVEN Robert Montgomery is a paranoid who flees an asylum in France, and turns out to be the head of a large industrial empire. But Colman's character is intelligent and fair minded - a good boss. Montgomery is argumentative, harsh, and (ultimately) incompetent and cowardly. One can say that RAGE IN HEAVEN is the dark side of RANDOM HARVEST.

Robert Montgomery's film career is one of the most aggravating in Hollywood history. He built up a career in the 1930s playing cads and bounders in MGM comedies, with an occasionally good comic hero role (THE LAST OF MRS. CHEYNEY and TROUBLE FOR TWO come to mind). Then he got the plum role of the psychopathic Danny in NIGHT MUST FALL, and an Oscar nomination for best actor in 1937. But he did not get the Oscar (Spencer Tracy did). I have always suspected that had Montgomery won the Oscar he deserved to his name would be properly remembered today, as more than just a good actor who was the father of television's "Samantha", Elizabeth Montgomery. Instead, while he still had some good parts later in his career (many as a director and producer, as well as actor), he never got the recognition he thoroughly deserved.

It is obvious that RAGE IN HEAVEN was meant to be a follow-up "psycho" role for Montgomery, following Danny. But Phillip Morell is not as well done as Danny, probably because NIGHT MUST FALL was a play by Emlyn Williams originally, and so it was easier to transfer it to the screen than Hilton's novel. But then, LOST HORIZON, MR. CHIPS, and RANDOM HARVEST were well done screenplays too. Danny (for all his murderous habits) has his human moments, but Phillip doesn't. Phillip is always under-spoken and wide eyed. He always is on the verge of exploding (and similarly of collapsing - witness the moment the Union leadership force their way into his office to confront him over his unwillingness to settle the labor impasse, and how he just collapses and runs out yelling, "Give them whatever they want!"). A modern treatment might develop his mania somewhat. It is obvious that Hilton understood what paranoids were capable of - the business about the hidden confession in the diary rings true - but it is still not developed enough for the audience to understand. We know that Phillip's father was insane (and committed suicide) but more details are needed.

It was Ingrid Bergman's third or fourth American film. She was slowly inching her way to real stardom (she had touched it opposite Leslie Howard in the Hollywood version of INTERMEZZO), but her performance, while natural, is not very memorable. George Sanders again demonstrates his dependability in any role, here as a good guy almost destroyed by his mad friend. Oscar Homolka does a good job as the asylum head, whose assistance to Bergman saves Sanders in the end. It is not as good a film as it should have been with a better laid out script, but it is watchable one or two times.

Over the years I missed this old film from 1941 which was directed by a famous director, W S Van Dyke and tells the story about a person who is mentally disturbed and has just escaped from a State Mental Institution.

Robert Montgomery, (Philip Monrell) just returned to his larger mansion and invited his very best friend, Ward Andrews, (George Sanders) to visit with him on the weekend. They discover a new person added to the household, Stella, (Ingrid Bergman) who is a personal secretary for Philip's mother and both Ward and Philip fall in love with her on first sight. As the story progress's, Philip eventually marries Stella, and it is at this point in the picture when things start to change and also the characters in the film. Great acting by Robert Montgomery and George Sanders gave a great supporting role. Enjoy

I love George Sanders, and I find Ingrid Bergman to be underrated. She was unfairly blackballed in Hollywood for having a child out of wedlock; something that would not raise an eyebrow these days. Robert Montgomery, however, I found to be strictly a B actor. But two out of three aint bad.

FIlms about the problems of the rich are annoying. Films about people who are rich and crazy receive almost no sympathy from an average person. No one feels sorry for the Montgomery character.

The only plot flub by Hilton here is that a passionate young woman like Bergman would prefer a silver spoon like Montgomery over the dashing Sanders. Please; any woman with a pulse would prefer Sanders over Mauling Blando. Worth viewing, and add a star if you like soaps.

The first half of this film is a fascinating portrayal of a Paranoid Psychopath. The second half deteriorates into an in-earnest attempt to deliver a thoughtful look at someone suffering from this form of mental illness.

Ingrid Bergman, in her third Hollywood feature, is the subject of a dangerous obsession from her husband, a wealthy heir, who lacks self-esteem and lives in a constant state of jealously and prone to being easily agitated. Robert Montgomery plays the ticking bomb.

Parenthetically, Montgomery was reportedly unhappy the studio demanded he play the role because he wanted time off and therefore delivered his lines quickly and without much effort. I found this to be, ironically, effective for the character.

The great George Sanders plays the man in most danger of the lead character's pathological illness. Unfortunately, his character is given little to work with in the third act of the film.

There's a scene where a trial is held and the apathy displayed by Sanders (with the exception of one shot) is astonishing.

In the 1940s Hollywood began its fascination with stories focused on psychology. This is one of the first films in that era and unfortunately it was put in the hands of director W. S. Van Dyke, who had the reputation of working quickly and was nicknamed "One-Take Van Dyke." You can see characters trip over lines and a lack of care over the story's plot line.

Oscar Homolka seriously overplays the mental health doctor in the picture. Clearly the rage over the film's miscues should be directed at Van Dyke.

In this psychological thriller, pathological jealousy and paranoia transform into destructive obsession, also addressing sensitive issues such as schizophrenia and suicide.

Young Philip Monrell (Robert Montgomery), scion of a wealthy industrial family, returning from an obscure trip to France, meets his college friend Ward Andrews (George Sanders) and decides to invite him to his villa for a few days. His elderly mother (Lucille Watson) awaits him with a pleasant surprise: the beautiful Stella Bergen (Ingrid Bergman), hired by her mother as her personal secretary. Meanwhile, Dr. Rameau (Oscar Homolka) frantically searches for a psychiatric patient who has escaped from his clinic.

The direction, completed by W. S. Van Dike, suffers from changes made by the production, which prevented a unified narrative; the screenplay, based on the story by James Hilton by Christopher Isherwood and Robert Thoeren, is also excessively hasty and hasty, portraying characters with little logic or reflection; the film also suffers from Robert Montgomery's apathetic and expressionless acting, which undermines its credibility.

Unfortunately, I found it rather poor, only lifted by the presence of Ingrid Bergman, well supported by George Sanders. A must-see for fans of Hitchcockian psychological noir, without too many expectations.

RAGE TO HEAVEN is an MGM B-film masquerading as an A-film, with a preposterous script and a very detached looking ROBERT MONTGOMERY playing a role he says he was "forced" to play.

At least INGRID BERGMAN and GEORGE SANDERS do more than walk through their paces. Sanders plays a decent guy, for a change, although most probably the casting would have been better if he had been in the Montgomery role. The story is a triangle involving a man with a past and two people victimized by him being released from an asylum.

As it is, this is old-fashioned melodrama with a Gothic touch, which unfortunately went through three directors. Woody Van Dyke was able to finish the film while on a 14 day leave from the Marines, which accounts for the hurried look of the film's last twenty-five minutes in which all of the final incidents are played at a frantic pace. This becomes so annoying that it's hard to judge the film as anything other than a B-film in search of a decent director, a happily cast leading actor and a script that makes sense. Richard Thorpe had to be called in to finish whatever remaining footage Van Dyke did not shoot.

ROBERT MONTGOMERY did himself no favor by deciding to play his role by the numbers, just to get even with the studio. The film suffers badly from his lack of participation. If ever an actor phoned in his role, this was it.

Worth a look as a curiosity piece--and at least fans of Bergman or Sanders should find their roles satisfying enough. But the absurd abruptness of the final scenes is really disconcerting.

Oscar HOMOLKA gets the award for Biggest Ham Acting as a doctor who holds the secret to Montgomery's past. He makes the role a mixture of comic parody and overly theatrical ham--just another factor that throws the whole film off balance.

"Rage in Heaven" belongs to the spate of Freudian movies of the forties: Hitchcock's "spellbound" Lang's "secret beyond the door" Tourneur's "cat people" Stahl's "leave her to heaven" Siodmak's "dark mirror" ,the list is endless.

"Rage in heaven" is an excellent underrated thriller.Although Philip's mother part is underwritten ,she predates the Hitchcockian mums ,those of "Notorious" "Strangers on a train" "Marnie" etc.Robert Montgomery whose character is the most interesting portrays a rich kid,probably victim of his over possessive mother -"he's more attractive than Ward" - A selfish paranoiac man who will not be satisfied till he destroys everything.His behavior makes sense:the cat,then the best friend (the enemy ,for his wife is in love with him),the wife and finally himself ,the doctor explains.

The screenplay might not be thoroughly original,but "Leave her to heaven" (1946) borrows Gene Tierney's diabolical suicide from it,and the final search has something of Cornell Woolrich (aka William Irish) ,notably his "phantom lady".

Three excellent actors,and a gripping story: you will not waste your time.

The start of Rage in Heaven feels like you're watching High Anxiety or After the Fox. It's a stormy night and doctors with thick accents are discussing a particularly difficult patient at a mental asylum (or is an institution for the very, very nervous?), when all of a sudden, said patient has stolen clothes and escaped! But before you start laughing, this movie is a drama.

George Sanders and his pal Robert Montgomery visit Bob's wealthy mother, Lucile Watson, after reuniting from a years-long absence. They meet the enchanting Ingrid Bergman, Lucile's companion, and both fall for her. Which will she pick? The sincere, romantic, stable George, or the insecure Bob who makes it clear he really needs her? After she makes her choice, the story continues with lots up downs and a few ups. It's hardly a picnic for Ingrid as she learns that the man she thought was wonderful actually has lots of demons.

Since both actors had played convincing villains in their careers, I won't tell you which one she picks or which one turns out to be the bad guy. I will say that if you're a George Sanders fan, you won't want to miss this movie. The romantic scenes in this movie are once-in-a-career for him. I loved seeing him as such a different character, and I wonder how his career would have gone if Hollywood had given him more romantic parts. All in all, this isn't the greatest old movie out there, but if you've already seen all Ingrid's famous flicks or you like a little danger in your drama, you can check it out. Don't get too attached to the kitten, though; it doesn't show anything, but its fate is telegraphed way in advanced (so this isn't a spoiler).