Recensioni degli utenti

I just caught this movie on cable and I was drawn into it. This is a very Hitchockian type of thriller. Blind mystery writer overhears kidnapping plot, but of course no one wants to believe him except his 2 good friends, one who wants to marry him. It had a a few chuckles along with suspense. Particulary when playwriters friend/aid is sent on a epic chase through London following a suspect. Playwriter of course nearly gets himself killed trying to figure out the pending kidnapping himself. A few colorful characters a good mystery plot, a lovelorn but smart girlfriend, a bitter playwriter who no one takes seriously and a very clever twist makes a very good movie. I wish for more nice quiet mysteries like this.

If you have worn out all your Hitchcock videos and need a good way to fill in a few hours on a rainy afternoon, this is the movie for you. A blind play-write over hears a fiendish conversation and is determined to intervene. Armed with his trusty man-servant and beautiful American female companion, this flick delivers on many levels, right up to the twist at the end.

They don't seem to make movies like this one anymore. Mores the pity. A must see for all suspense fans, plus a lovely glimpse into 50's London.

Scored it as 8/10.

Philip Hannon is a blind playwright residing in London, during one of his R&R moments at the local public house, he overhears part of a conversation that suggests the vile kidnapping of a child. Getting the police force to take him seriously proves hard to achieve, so with the help of his trusty butler and his ex fiancée, Jean Lennox, he hopes to avert a dastardly crime.

Well well well, sometimes you can tune into a film not expecting much more than a B movie rush, yet just occasionally you get submarined and get a mysterious treat that deserves far better support than it actually gets. I have been delighted to log on to this films page and see that others have been entertained by this picture as much as myself. This is not ground breaking or even remotely original, in fact it does play out as some sort of cheap knock off idea that Hitchcock turned down in his sleep, but you know what? Sometimes a film can be great just for having an honest will to entertain the viewers with suspense and mystery being its main fortitudes.

Henry Hathaway directs and it's just another film to prove that as up and down as his career was, he was never afraid to tackle different genres, here, with the London location totally interesting, he manages to knit it all together with impressive results. Van Johnson has his critics, and it would be foolish of me to not concur that at times he has been wooden, but here as the blind Phillip Hannon, he shows that if given good enough roles he was more than able to rise to the challenge. Not one to revisit often for sure, but seriously recommended to those who like the genre and are stuck for a good film to watch. 7/10

Hathaway was a brilliant director.He did never,until the very end ("the last safari")produce anything truly mediocre:from "the witching hour" to "True Grit "and "Nevada Smith,his work encompasses such classics as "lives of a Bengal lancer" "Peter Ibbetson" "House on 92 th street" "kiss of death" "niagara" "Legend of the lost",sorry if I cannot mention them all.

Influenced by Hitchcock's "rear window" (Vera Miles was a Hitchcockesque actress although she had yet to work with him in 1956 ),"23 paces to Baker street" ,on the other hand ,had on strong influence on Frederick Knott whose "wait until dark" was transferred to the screen by Terence Young with Audrey Hepburn in 1967: the scene of the "broken lights" was stolen from Philip McDonald.("Now we are equal;not afraid of the dark,are you?") "23 paces to Baker Street" should appeal to people who enjoyed the two movies I mention above;it takes place in a foggy London,with plenty of suspense and a plot which is sometimes a bit complicated and far-fetched but it does not matter:you watch it just like you read Agatha Christie's books.

This is one of those films that work very well indeed. It is (in it's way) similar to Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW, except that film gets Jimmy Stewart, Grace Kelly, and Thelma Ritter involved with more than just Raymond Burr's crime - it gets them involved with the lives of all their neighbors in that courtyard in Manhattan. Here the film pares down the involvement of Van Johnson, Vera Miles, and Cecil Parker into the solution of who is the target of a kidnapping plot, and where will it be pulled off. But the film is as full of twists as Hitchcock's best films, and has a neat twist in the final confrontation that beats out Raymond Burr's confrontation with Jimmy Stewart and Stewart's flash bulbs.

On a visit to London, an apparently recently blinded American playwrite over-hears a highly suspicious conversation which may or may not mean a kidnapping... together with his manservant and former secretary he begins to try and put the pieces together.

For 1956 this is a surprisingly twisted piece, involving both highly unconventional villain and target/victim. Delicious shots of mid-50's London (check out Barker's of Kensington), a serviceable performance by Johnson, Miles decorative but wasted (except in one scene), the glorious Parker, and Winwood hamming it up to the hilt, all add up to an enjoyable sub-Hitchcockian romp. Yes it owes a debt to 'Rear Window', but then 'Wait Until Dark' owes a debt to this!

I saw this film a number of years ago, with someone very special, and just before the cineplex facilities effected closing the majority of the conventional, free-standing movie theaters in large cities and small. Just saw it again, after a number of years.

We sat in the balcony, and, having always enjoyed Van Johnson's work, I enjoyed this clever, interesting story even more than if the lead had been someone else.

With all of the elements and twists one finds with Hitchcock, the fact of the principal character's blindness is effective and adds a dimension to the mystery/thriller aspects of the film. (Of course, this handicap is necessary, since a sighted person would have seen what he overhears in the pub, setting-off the drama changing the story's essence. And, it adds to the quality of the story that this factor is not exaggerated or "hokey," and everything surrounding it is logical and believable.)

There are the two primary co-stars with Johnson, and absent are the greater number of characters surrounding the leads which one would normally expect to find - and the movie is better for this.

Van Johnson, who is now 90, in my opinion is underrated as a talent. He had boyish, casual good looks, and came into film as a leading man during a period when as handsome as they were, most leading men always seemed to have a pint of Wildroot or Brilliantine in their hair (e.g. Tyrone Power, Flynn, Robert Taylor).

He played light comedy, serio-comedy love stories, and serious roles with talented, versatile performances. Like Alan Ladd, although not regarded in this capacity, he'd had experience as a male chorus member/dancer in earlier career - during the era when more of the nightclub/review type of entertainment was present.

This film is interesting, with a neat, tight story, engaging characters and performances - and now that it is 50 years since its release, it also provides a nostalgic look at a film from the mid-1950's, with that period's "noir" characteristics.

Van Johnson's highly developed senses of sound and odor go a long way in 23 Paces To Baker Street. Although there's no reference at all to Baker Street's most famous resident in literature, Johnson turns out to be quite the detective himself although he had two premises initially wrong.

The blind Johnson is an American author living in London and keeping company with fellow expatriate Vera Miles. His only living companion is his valet Cecil Parker. While enjoying a drink at a nearby pub, he overhears what sounds like a criminal plot of kidnapping. Of course when he takes his suspicions to Scotland Yard they are understandably dubious.

Without sight and not being able to write apparently even braille, Johnson records the conversation on his tape recorder and goes over and over it.

What I liked about 23 Paces To Baker Street and Johnson's performance in it is that it shows Johnson making use of his other senses which in turn give him a kind of mission in life as opposed to being bitter about his fate. On the other hand he certainly has obvious vulnerabilities which the bad guys take advantage of. There is a harrowing scene in a bombed out building from the Blitz in which Johnson is nearly killed.

Young Natalie Norwood as an unwilling participant in the plot is also a standout here. And Patricia Laffan who was both Poppaea in Quo Vadis and the Devil Girl From Mars is equally villainous here.

Nice job all around with director Henry Hathaway getting great performances from Johnson, Miles, and the British cast supporting them.

This I assert is a minor masterpiece of film-making, which has long been underestimated by critics but never by fans. Its images, I suggest, burn themselves into the mind where other cinematic tales soon pale and are forgotten. To mention just a few scenes, the film presents a blind playwright describing the view of the Thames to the fiancé he left behind, a lovely nanny who isn't quite what she seems playing another nanny or perhaps not, a sightless man guiding a lost man through a fog, the same man discovering that a building's front isn't there and a battle in the darkness between a murderer and victim. The script, adapted from a tense Philip MacDonald novel by Nigel Balchin, was made into what I say is an expensive-looking and relentlessly beautiful film by veteran director Henry Hathway. Henry Ephron produced, and every element was realized seemingly by flawless skill, from understated music by Leigh Harline to the cinematography by Milton R. Krasne, to the art direction by Lyle Wheeler and Maurice Ransford, to the outstanding set decorations by Walter M. Scott and Fay Babock and costumes by Travilla. Add famed Ben Nye as makeup artist and the great Helen Turpin as hair stylist and it would be hard for this film to have gone anything but very right. The cast is headed by lovely young Vera Miles as the love interest and Van Johnson coming near something very fine as the blind playwright, Philip Hannon. Maurice Denham plays a befuddled police Inspector, and Cecil Parker tries hard as Hannon's assistant. Patricia Laffan has her best role since Quo Vadis as the mysterious Miss MacDonald, stealing every scene she is in. Other actors showing to advantage include within this strongly-made and taut fictional noir mystery Liam Redmond, Isobel Elsom, lively Estelle Winwood, Martin Benson, Natalie Norwick, and Terence de Marney. On the grounds of pace, intelligence of dialog and sheer memorability alone, this is a Top Hundred film, and the father to many stories starring blind protagonists from TV's "Longstreet" to "Wait Until Dark". There had been films about a blind central character before; but this Technicolor, attractive and exciting film was the project that brought the idea of such films to the minds of producers and viewers alike as none before had done. The mystery I believe is an interesting one, the characters believable from first to last, and the extraordinary work by Patricia Laffan and Vera Miles raise the film far above its competitors' best. It is clearly much better than "in the Heat of the Night", the obsessive "Vertigo" or even "Key Largo". And its makers accomplish its power without striving consciously to achieve it. Were it not for "Rear Window", the film might be considered the best 50's noir of all. I recommend it unreservedly.

Now I will go to great trouble to avoid entering a spoiler like an earlier commenter. I give this film such a high rating because of the cleverness of toe concept: a blind man overhearing a conversation which indicates a crime is afoot. A tip of toe hat to the commentator who noticed the similarity between this movie and Argento's Cat O' Nine Tails ... a similarity that immediately crossed my mind the first time I saw the Argento flick. Anyway, 23 Paces to Baker Street could easily be an Argento giallo with the clever plot twists, but it lacks the gore most Argento fans want. I enjoyed 23P in 1956 when it was new and I was my voice had not changed. The plot twists and surprises have remained vividly in my memory for 50 years. Oddly I didn't notice a resemblance to Rear Window but I was very young then. I heartily recommend 23P to Baker Street. It's most suspenseful!

A blind playwright, Phillip Hannon, is sitting in a pub when he overhears a suspicious conversation. The two people in the next booth appear to be plotting a crime. Hannon informs the police but they are convinced his suspicions are merely due to the workings of his dramatical mind. Undeterred, he sets out to work out the mystery himself. However, this puts his own life in danger.

Mildly interesting. The main plot has a Hitchcockian feel to it, reinforced by it resembling Rear Window but with a blind man instead of a man unable to walk. (Interestingly, Rear Window was released only two years previously). Unfortunately, that's where any resemblance to an Alfred Hitchcock drama ends.

While there is some intrigue, there is little tension, as director Henry Hathaway just lets things go on without upping the pace or creating any real sense of danger. The plot is far from watertight, highlighted by a final twist that, while unforeseen, doesn't entirely make sense.

This said, it is intriguing enough to not be a total waste of time.

Interestingly, quite a number of reviewers praised this film (and convinced me to buy the DVD) as if Hitchcock himself might have liked to have done it. Well, he didn't and certainly, he wouldn't! The merits of the film are very obvious, splendid location photography and a few well done action moments. But in-between, boredom and at the end no real explanation what has been going on or who did what with whom. As some people already mentioned, Vera Miles has no chance with this mousy role of hers and Van Johnson is sometimes so wooden, you want to poke him with a stick. Cecil Parker has some good moments. Overall it is a film that leaves you with a handful of questions.

Passable suspenser despite a rather muddled script that doesn't acquaint us well with either the suspects or the plot developments. Thus the mystery part minimizes needed involvement. Johnson does an acceptable job feigning a blind man, but perhaps his biggest triumph is removing any sentimentality from Hannon's affliction. Thus the film never, to its credit, descends into the kind of treacle it so easily could have. In fact, Hannon remains understandably irascible throughout.

That tightrope struggle on the crumbling roof is a real nail-biter and the film's dramatic highpoint. But frankly the showdown in Hannon's darkened apartment lacks the skillful development of, say, Wait Until Dark (1967), to become memorable. The live London backdrop, however, adds a lot of interesting color and is well photographed. And though she's winsome as heck, Vera Miles is largely wasted in a part that many lesser actresses could have filled. Anyway, the movie's an acceptable time passer with a few good moments, but I'll bet it's not on Scotland Yard's Must-See list.

It took several viewings for me to follow the storyline; not that it's overly complex, it's merely muddled. For a suspense thriller, there's little suspense and few thrills. It perhaps could have benefitted from a more tense musical score. Yet despite all that, and some clumsily directed sequences, this is a fun, atmospheric film. If you enjoy an old-fashioned approach to whodunits, you're in for a cozy ride. Van Johnson isn't a particularly compelling leading man though he does an adequate job here. Vera Miles imbues her slenderly written character with charm and professionalism. Cecil Parker displays the same wit he showed in "The Ladykillers." The Kino Lorber Blu-Ray DVD has a beautifully restored widescreen picture, but the audio commentary is by far the worst I have ever heard.

Can you imagine squeaky-clean Van Johnson in an Alfred Hitchcock-esque thriller? If you can't, but you'd like to, check out the exciting British flick 23 Paces to Baker Street. Van plays an American writer living in London. Since the terrible accident that cost him his sight, he's retreated from society, avoided work, and broken up with his fiancé Vera Miles. Vera still loves him, but she realizes he's lost interest in life. When a mystery draws him in, he realizes he can still put together clues without seeing them.

Cecil Parker costars as Van Johnson's devoted butler, hilarious at every turn. He's sent on errands, like taking pictures of suspects or following people and taking note of their whereabouts. But, sometimes he gets confused. . . Once he waits outside the wrong building for hours in the rain and brings home nothing but a head cold.

Chances are you haven't heard of this movie because there are lots of classic thrillers more famous, but check it out if it appeals to you. I really enjoyed it, more than I thought I would. It had a good pace to it, jokes to balance out the thriller aspects, and more than enough suspense to keep you through. Pair this movie with Wait Until Dark on a rainy weekend for a very exciting time!

I have watched this particular movie several times; of course, I most likely do that with a lot of movies that are my favorites : )

The basic story is of a somewhat embittered, well-to-do man who had lost his sight fairly recently becoming reinvigorated about life again when he thinks that he overhears parts of a discussion in a bar that may suggest that there is a murder being planned. The acting, writing and direction are superb! As the plot begins to unravel, you are truly pulled along more and more into the story; it is VERY entertaining, especially for those who like good mysteries a la Sherlock Holmes.

If I may throw in a bit of a sort-of non sequitur here, (at least as far as any huge similarities in the two movies,) but, it's interesting, at least to me, to note the similarity of character between Van Johnson's blind detective here, and Karl malden's character in Dario Argento's "Cat O' Nine Tails" where he also plays a blind 'detective'. Just a thought, nothing serious, (however, that is also a very good mystery, just a little heavier content due to being more recent and from Argento, of course : )

That's about it; have fun watching it.... You will : )

My mother was a mystery buff and that rubbed off on me big time. She and I often watched late night mysteries. 23 Paces to Baker Street was one of my all-time favorites. This mystery, based upon the book "Warrant for X" by the great Philip MacDonald (who also authored The List of Adrian Messenger, among other great stories). The film version contains some rewritten material but the mystery is delivered intact. Performances by Miles and Johnson are a bit hammy, Cecil Parker more than makes up for this by his brilliant portrayal of Bob, Hammon's long-suffering man-servant. I have very fond memories of Mama, and every time I see this film, I am transported back in time to that rainy, late night, when we watched it together, trying to guess whodunit.

Okay, so in story 23 Paces to Baker Street mayn't be the most original on the block, but it doesn't necessarily need to be to be entertaining. There may be the odd cliché about, however there is much to enjoy namely the suspenseful and Hitchcockian-like story and the telling and suspense of it is very taut too. The film is very well made, with stylish photography and striking production values while I enjoyed the traditional fog used. Henry Hathaway's direction is excellent too, the screenplay is cracking, Van Johnson is very good in an ideal role, Vera Miles is suitably sympathetic and the support cast are faultless. Overall, very entertaining, well made and suspenseful film and worth repeat viewings. 9/10 Bethany Cox

In the immediately post-Rear Window world that was 1956, Henry Hathaway's 23 Paces to Baker Street arrives with the promise of murder and other varying versions of foulness being afoot that are either overheard or overseen by that of our gallant hero; his suspicions, amidst a sea of oppositional voices headed by that of those close to him, driving the thrills and spills of a film following our lead taking the basics of a case that he has to go on into a full blown uncovering of nastiness. In Hitchcock's wondrous chiller, the lead was denied his mobility in the form of a broken leg, although could observe anything he wanted and everything he felt he needed via that pair of handy binoculars he owned; the film rich in context in that way, used periodically around as a basis of educational starting points in regards to the notion of characters "looking" within the frame. In Hathaway's film, such an idea is subverted in the providing of us with a lead able to get around, although hindered by blindness; with it additionally going the Hitchcockian thrill of a character being able to see what he sees and being unable to act on it - replaced by someone thinking they've heard something and then getting caught up in a proverbial web once the physical getting out and undertaking of a misadventure kicks off. In short, it isn't as tense and it isn't as claustrophobic in that restricted way you felt Rear Window was, but we can work with it.

That lead is Van Johnson's Phillip Hannon, an American playwright living in London basking in the success of some decent past plays already under his belt and in the process of finishing yet another. Only, he isn't; the man is cynical and often embittered, living alone bar with his faithful butler Bob (Parker) in an apartment which handily overlooks most of London's more easier iconography. Milling around is an ex-secretary whom doubles up as a former flame, that of Jean (Miles) whose implication that he knows him all too well occurs when she advises Bob on helping him in certain department. In being blind, Phil must dictate into a microphone his work by explaining the purer details on both the setting and character traits, before providing the folk with dialogues occurring therein; something that takes its toll on a current work which he's in constant means of writing and rewriting. When out one evening at a sparsely populated public house, the film's catalyst occurs; some silhouetted characters, one rather laughable in their shady complexion, mumbling to one another just the other side of a thin glass pane. We're not sure what it is about, but it sounds sordid enough to send our Phil into all sorts of discomfort when he paints images of kidnappings and chaos, the likes of which, according to the voices, are merely days away thus providing the film with a sense of urgency in that regard as the clock supposedly ticks down.

Primarily, the film's chief source of ambiguity as to whether these people talking in this public house, of whom nobody else heard nor really saw, were engaging in the sorts of things Phil accuses them of, lies with whether or not we entrust Phil to be entirely 'with it'. As a man whom specialises in characters; high-drama and extravagantly fictitious scenarios, we question whether he is to be entirely trusted during a process of injecting these faceless shadows with personas and traits, one instance of text-reading ability seeing him deduce that the female shadow must have been a rich woman due to a scent prominent purely with expensive perfume.

Indeed, Hathaway goes to certain lengths to create a portrait of the man as somebody a little fragile as he limps on with his work and thus, is perhaps not entirely believable. The instances are juxtaposed by that of the manner in which Phil describes with rue, but spectacularly accurately all-the-same, a scene on the river Thames as he shares a boat ride with some of his friends; his capturing of the boats and the buildings and the way the weather lies contributing to something which, despite being unable to see, alludes to an ability to configure fitting, accurate descriptions of what it is he senses in his presence. One of the reoccurring morsels of genius in Hitchcock's Rear Window was the ambiguity surrounding whether or not everything might have been in the lead's imagination, a sense of doubtfulness I didn't necessarily feel as aware of in 23 Paces to Baker Street as a film providing us with a lead; giving us this would-be sordid founding and then playing out its narrative in a fashion that didn't suggest it would lead anywhere else bar a denouement complete with a twist and a standard, building-blocks imbued finale.

For the best part, the film has fun with its premise and provides us with some decent set pieces; Bob the butler going after a certain somebody through the hustle and bustle of a busy London shopping day one of them. Another instance, in which the decaying buildings born out of wartime shellings that are yet to be dealt with act as the setting, sees a quite frightening sequence in which someone needs only walk a few feet in the gloom of the evening to fall to their deaths. The film is peppered with the sounds of steamers and their fog-horns anonymously blaring through the often nightly set haze and rearing from the locale of the nearby river; the tooting of the tug boats usually accompanying them in what is a morbid internal soundtrack overlying proceedings and accentuating the sleaze and depravity rife within this London's underbelly. Hathaway has by no means directed a dud, and those supporting the lead do well in standing around acting estranged at Phil's accusations, but one could do an awful lot better if one is yet to be exposed to Hitchcock.

In London, blind American playwright Phillip Hannon (Van Johnson) is struggling despite having a hit play. Jean Lennox (Vera Miles) is desperate to reconnect with him but he wants to be alone with his manservant Bob Matthews (Cecil Parker). She's his former secretary turned ex-girlfriend. At a bar, he partially overhears what sounded like a kidnapping plan. The police is unconvinced and it's left to the trio of amateur sleuths.

I like the starting premise perfectly fine. It's a good premise. I was trying so hard to pay attention to the conversation. It really pulls the audience into the story. Two issues soon become apparent. The first is the half-listened conversation. Somebody needs to list all the big clues so that the audience can participate in the mystery solving. I followed it for a little while but the film eventually loses me. The more egregious problem is that Phillip insists on being alone all the time while trying to solve the case. It's stupid and it's frustrating to have smart people be dumb. He is very dumb which makes this movie just as dumb. He should never be alone and Jean would be barely better as protection. They need muscle who can see. It gets too dumb and I have to abandon all hope.