Mirage

This is a terrific film well done from all aspects. The use of flashbacks are a great touch as an amnesiac, played by Gregory Peck, desperately tries to figure out his predicament and piece together the last 2 years of his life. Matthau is great, as always, as the PI trying to help him out. The scenes in the Psychiatrist's office alone are worth the effort to see this film.

I rented this in honor of Walter Matthau - and he was the liveliest part of this film - the screen really came alive when he was on screen. I love Greg Peck - but he was pretty low key in the part, maybe a little too much so. Diane Baker was quite good - her career was really on an upswing when she made this film - wonder why she didn't become a bigger star.

Definitely an entertaining movie - with some nice twists and turns to keep you interested all the way to the end.

This wonderfully ingenious mystery is one of the better faux Hitchock films out there. The setup is excellent, the mystery comes quick and keeps deepening, and the cast is solid, especially Matthau.

The mystery is clever and the solution is also pretty clever and holds together nicely. So the whole movie *should* be great.

But as ingenious as it is, the creators couldn't find a neat way to explain it all, resulting in a bit too much exposition in the last quarter.

And once the central mystery is solved, there is still a story to deal with, and the movie really struggles with that, in part because it seems afraid to really deal with the political issues it raises, like some movie from the 40s that tries to follow the plight of an unwed mother without mentioning sex. It's not that I didn't understand the whole story by the end, but that the resolution had a strange, muted feeling to it.

Still, overall this is well worth watching.

I saw "Mirage" on television shortly after its theatrical release (1965) and I never quite forgot it, especially the part about the stairs that lead to nowhere, and the dream scene where the two men are standing under the tree on the lawn. My earliest recollection of seeing "Spellbound" was a decade or two later. Both movies feature Gregory Peck in the role of an amnesiac that may have committed a murder, and even though I was greatly intrigued by the similarity, I was keenly aware of the fact that it was not the same movie that I remembered from the '60s. These two movies are each intriguing in their own right, and the unlikely similarity between them only adds to that intrigue. Eventually I saw "Mirage" again just a couple of years after seeing "Spellbound", and I was glad at having finally untangled these two movies in my mind.

Another similarity shared by these two movies is that in both movies, the character played by Gregory Peck is befriended by a charming young woman, played by Ingrid Bergman in "Spellbound" and by Diane Baker in "Mirage". Both movies also incorporate the use of surreal dream sequences. "Spellbound" is of course noted for its use of dream sequences that were created by Salvidor Dali.

"Spellbound" has the feel of a Hitchcock movie from an earlier era, whereas "Mirage" has the feel of a movie made in the middle '60s, and one that could have been made by Hitchcock at that later date. They are both good movies, but personally I prefer "Mirage", and I think that "Spellbound" would be largely forgotten were it not for the inclusion of the Dali dream sequences and for the fact that Hitchcock directed it. The dream sequences in "Spellbound" are far more surreal than the dream sequences in "Mirage", and they are brought to consciousness through psychoanalysis. In "Mirage" the plot is more intricate (which is to be expected of a movie that was made in the '60s as compared to one made in the '40s) and the dream sequences, which occur as spontaneous flashbacks, are more involved with the unfolding of that more intricate plot. In "Mirage", the character makes a couple of hasty visits to a psychiatrist while trying to understand what is going on with his mind, and it is during the first such visit that he comes to grips with the fact that he is suffering from amnesia. The psychiatrist helps him to understand what is going on with his mind, but there is no psychoanalysis. Interestingly, whereas psychiatry is treated with due respect in the movie made in the '40s, the psychiatrist is practically made fun of in the movie made in the '60s.

Both movies are certainly entertaining to watch, and anyone who has found either of these two movies enjoyable will almost certainly enjoy the other one as well. You may also derive some satisfaction from the untangling of your memories of these two uncannily similar movies.

I've always had great affection for this film, ever since seeing it in a theatre as a teenager.

First, a major innovation in thrillers - flashbacks done as direct jump-cuts into the actual flow of the film (no wavy lines or warped visuals to announce to the audience that they're seeing a flashback) This movie demanded that you keep up with what was unfolding and trusted you to figure out what was past and present.

Peter Stone's script - sharp, thrilling and funny, very much like Ernest Lehman's work on "North By Northwest" and Stone's own work on "Charade" and "Arabesque".

The villains...priceless...the grumpy, elderly hit-man who accosts Peck in Central Park...brilliant idea. Jack Weston's wisecracking hit-man..(a seemingly jolly joker, who lets his mask drop briefly in a pivotal scene with Peck) And of course, George Kennedy as Willard, a rampaging psycho who nurses grudges against victims who dare to defend themselves. I almost forgot Kevin McCarthy as the quintessential sniveling corporate toady.

A true classic....and a total crime and injustice that it's not on DVD yet.