Cual copa de cristal

The Upturned Glass is really good, up until the ending, so if you like suspenseful, tense thrillers and don't mind lukewarm endings, rent it during your next movie night with the girls. It's not the best movie to rent with your sweetie pie, since you'll spend the entire time sighing over James Mason!

James stars as a brain surgeon and professor. He tells a story to his students about how, in theory, someone can get away with murder. Of course, the story is much more than a hypothetical, and soon the audience is treated to the wonderful world of flashbacks. In the past, James Mason operated on a young girl and fell in love with her mother, Rosamund John. They're both married, and after a tearful goodbye, they agree not to see each other anymore. Then, the unthinkable happens. . .

James's at-the-time wife Pamela Mason costars as Rosamund's sister-in-law, and it's always fun to see the Masons acting together. Pamela plays a great "bad girl," doesn't she? If you like James Mason, this is a great movie to watch, since he's the hero with a bit of a villainous streak hiding underneath. Plus, since so often his handsomeness was ignored by Hollywood, it's nice to see him as a romantic lead!

A prominent neurosurgeon (James Mason) investigates the death of his lover (Rosamund John) in "The Upturned Glass" from 1947.

Mason plays Dr. Michael Joyce, an unhappily married man. He tells his students the story of a doctor who, after helping a young girl regain her sight, falls in love with the girl's mother, Emma (Rosamund John). Her husband is away; they decide never to see one another again.

Soon after, he learns that Emma has fallen out a window to her death. Michael doesn't believe it's suicide and sets out to find the killer. One way he does this is by getting close to her sister-in-law (Pamela Kellino).

Kellino in reality was Mason's wife, Pamela Mason, who co-wrote an excellent script. It has the perfect British atmosphere - dark, foggy, and mysterious. Kellino's role (no surprise) is an especially good one, that of a mean-spirited, uncaring woman interested only in money. Mason is terrific.

Highly recommended. An absorbing film.

One of the earlier reviewers suggested that the film takes "the easy way out." I partially agree, but think that the real reason for the disappointing finale was the censors. They, in their moral righteousness, did their very best to ruin any number of UK and American films. In this case, the ending makes little sense. Otherwise, a very satisfying early addition to the film noir genre. The photography and pacing are perfect and carry the bleak mood. A minor quibble is that the notion of the lovers breaking off wasn't totally credible, but then, perhaps it was a different moral universe in the 1940s. Mason, as always, is excellent to the point that the viewer cannot take his eyes off of him (not that one would want to). Pamela is a hateful character, as from all reports, she was in real life.

This is a very unusual and intelligent thriller, like most thrillers involving doctors usually are. It is the first of James Mason's very few own productions and features his own wife, Pamela Mason, here Pamela Kellino, as the second of the two ladies he is involved with, both of them leading to disaster. The intrigue cleverly leads astray at times while at the same time it sharpens as the doctor (James Mason) finds his own case constantly more crucial. He stages a kind of mock trial with himself by giving a lecture at the medical theatre with all rows filled with young attentive students, and one student almost sees through his show and sharpens his case even further. Is he in control or is he not? Has he the right to judge what's right or wrong or has he not? The film poses many questions, and the questioning becomes increasingly more critical, until in the end he is faced with the final trial as a doctor, when an emergency calls on him to perform one more brain surgery. It's the doctor who assists him who puts him to the final test, and these scenes are the most interesting and important in the film. James Mason as the doctor has no other choice than to be consistent with his own argument and conclude his own case after having received an understated sentence by his elderly colleague. It's a remarkable film, not for its direction, which could have been better, but for its very thought-provoking story with the presentation of a case which not even doctors could in any possible way be called upon to give a fair judgement of. The tragedy of this case is that James Mason, one of the best actors ever, a constantly brooding romantic hero, more Hamletian than Byronic, has no other choice, which probably no one could reasonably disagree with.

In addition, you can't help recognizing some details here from other, later films, that boast its influence, especially Hitchcock's "Vertigo", displaying the identical problem of a man's involvement in two women related with each other, Hitchcock much developing the theme to an equally crucial crisis but in another direction, while the very vertigo scenes Hitchcock must have got the idea of from here.

It should also be noted, that John Monaghan, the script writer, appears as an extra (the truck driver), He made some similar appearances in some films, but this is the only film he wrote, with Mrs Mason as co-script writer. The intrigue with its complications and arguments is so psychologically interesting, that you find more in it each time you see it. For that reason, in spite of its flaws, I will give it a full 10.

This is why I have always loved classic film - the QUALITY OF ACTING.

Story: While not hugely original, it has enough original ideas and themes that kept me interested nearly 100% (which I'm not want to do). The story is largely about three (3) elements: a) A brilliant brain surgeon, b) a man obsessed with justice, and c) the insidious nature of isolating oneself. Combining all three made for a compelling story, though again, not overly intriguing. One complaint is that the opening scene should have been an anchor, that we would have been routed back to in the end, but we're not. For me, that leaves that facet of the story extraneous, or just a big disappointment.

Acting: James Mason's acting skill is on the order of Alec Guinness, and the like - fully committed to character and never flinches on camera. Complete immersion in character keeps the viewer unaware that the actor is "acting." My only (chief) complaint is that the whole story (screen time) is virtually Mason the whole time, which can be monotonous. He's top shelf, but overused here.

Tempo: Excellent tempo as the film and story weave along, though again, Mason ties up the whole screen which drags down the rhythm for me.

Directing: Excellent camera work, scene quality with no major complaints save the near "obsession" with the lead character (Mason).

Summary: Well done film for its era and genre, and excellent acting. Mason overpowers the screen which left me somewhat disappointed by the lack of variety among the characters. Overall a solid 7.5 / 10.