Charade

I bought a video of this Charade months ago and was almost afraid to watch it after reading Sheridan Morley's comments about it in the biography he wrote about James Mason. (If Morley's account of Mason's life is to be believed, he threw opportunity for real Hollywood stardom away with both hands.) I was pleasantly surprised as it was a delightful film, perfect for the small screen. The stories were charmingly portrayed, the acting was fine, but I doubt Pamela would have had much of an acting career without James' coattails to ride on. I actually liked the last story the best. James as Jeeves was particularly funny to me. You could see him switch gears and Viola - there was Diello from Five Fingers.

Having said that, it is clear to me that James and Pamela really had a desire to be creative above any desire for James to be a Hollywood star. One of their early efforts was an independent film James and Pamela wrote, produced (with her ex-husband, Roy Kellino), starred in and distributed. It's called "I Met A Murderer" and despite the hokey title, it's very good.

I watched this on DVD as a bonus track to the Charade (1963, starring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn). The James and Pamela Mason Charade(1953) is the main reason I bought the DVD because I have already watched the other Charade many times. I must say this is a very good production. Small budget it may be. Nevertheless, it offers as much suspense as the well-known Charade 1963.

This is a trio of unrelated short stories all starred by James and Pamela Mason. The Mason couple were there to introduce each short story and give comments after it, as if they were talking to each other in a living room. The first is a murder mystery of a divorced painter in Paris, followed by a duel with a twist between two 18th century Austrian Officers and last but not least, a man who is troubled by his wealth. The Masons acted well and the stories well-told. It is a pleasure to see, every once in a while, unsophisticated set and the plot and characters really in the spotlight. There are no distractions - colour, props, special effects, big stars. This could very well be a stage play. The fact that James Mason produced and Pamela Mason wrote the stories lent authenticity and deep understanding to the movie. The Masons proved that they are talented, original thinkers who could bring their brainchild on screen competently.

Among the trio, I like the last one best. Murders and duels might have been too often repeated on screen. Something out of the ordinary as the third one keeps one guessing about its ending.

I strongly recommend the movie, if not for the acting, then for a tribute to the talents of James and Pamela Mason. 9/10

Episodic British film about a couple (James and Pamela Mason) who go through three scenarios as possibilities for a film, with them taking the lead in each scenario.

The best one by far was the first, about a woman who sees her neighbor's killer but doesn't tell anyone. Later he shows up to romance her, and she falls for him.

The second one is a period piece about a soldier challenged to a duel, and the third is about a man with the Midas touch who gives it all up to look for what he really wants in life.

All in all, very good.

I have to admit that i thought this was the classic charade movie when i watch and i expected some great twist at the end or somewhat of a clever ending , instead i got lose my 1 1/2 hours of my life , so this movie was not in any way of a thriller but a mixture of three movies told without any certain objective , i am not saying that this is the worst movie i have ever seen (i have seen a lot of movies) but it was a very boring experience among the three stories the middle one was somewhat entertaining anyway i would not recommend you watching this movie it was that much of disappointing , sorry for my bad English and thank you for reading my review

The odd trio of James Mason, Pamela Mason and director Roy Kellino (Pamela's first husband prior to James) made this obscure 3-part feature, which IMDb omits any mention of an American release. It's quite poor and merely a curiosity.

In-joke throughout is that Mason has decided to produce a movie, and this is it. He was riding high as a major movie star at the time, fresh off playing Rommel in "The Desert Rats", Brutus in "Julius Caesar", Captain Nemo in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and with "A Star Is Born" on tap. Unfortunately, while hardly a home movie, its sense of the Masons indulging themselves is palpable.

Kellino was doing a fine job directing segments of "Four Star Playhouse" on TV at the time, and this one plays like three reject segments of same, stuck together, with the Masons starring, sort of a Two Star Playhouse.

Worst one is a comedy in which Jame plays a modern King Midas character, uncannily able to make a fortune effortlessly, but unsatisfied with his empty life taken up entirely by wheeling and dealing. He opts to give it all up and goes to England to seek some purpose in life, yet oddly spending his time working in menial jobs ranging from window washer to a butler. He fall in love with a Cockney style maid played by Pamela, and ends up back in New York running his former empire again -strictly a shaggy-dog story written by Pam & James without an ending.

Better is a Dumas adaptation by Scott Forbes of an Alexandre Dumas story, with Forbes starring as the bad guy opposite James. It's a one note affair about them duelling, with Scott the cad. Typically, in the movie's wraparound footage, James regrets not taking the villain role himself instead of the hero.

He gets to be a sterotypical, egotistical villain in the other vignette, a two-hander for himself and James. It's a tedious suspense story minus suspense, as she witnesses a murder but falls in love with the murderer, who of course is James. Their verbal sparring is boring, and the material goes nowhere.