Hotel Reservado

I enjoyed this. It had an interesting plot, and yes, Hitchcock would probably have beefed it up and done it better, and some of the characters are clichés, but not a bad way to spend a rainy afternoon.

For a film over 75 years old it has stood the test of time quite well. It was a far better viewing experience than many current films I have watched recently.

A young James Mason does a fine job in this film. The story is set a few years before the start of WW II. Mason is a guest at a quiet resort hotel in France. His camera is accidentally used by a German spy who has an identical one. When Mason takes a roll of film to be developed, the roll contains several pictures of top secret French aircraft and facilities. The police question Mason and are able to determine that he is innocent in the matter. But, they use the charges against him as leverage to get him to assist them in finding out which of the other hotel guests is the spy. How he succeeds makes for a most interesting and tension filled story.

One wonders what this movie would have become if Hitchcock had gotten his hands on it. Would he have revved up the plot, tightened up the script, recast some of the characters, put in a highway chase over the countryside interrupted by sheep, added a more appealing female interest for Mason? The climb up to the roof at the end, the strong lighting and direct closeups, the art and photographic direction(seemingly uncredited to one of the directors),as well as the music score and the general "look" of the film, not to mention James Mason's compelling presence all had the ingredients for a potential Hitchcockian thriller, but something is missing here. The plot's not that complicated (certainly not like "The Lady Vanishes") and there seems not to be enough risk or sense of danger (certainly not like "The 39 Steps")to Mason's life, although there is suspense and surprise along the way. One big weakness is the supporting cast. The young lady's character (can't even remember her name) isn't developed enough, nor does she have sufficient charm or sex appeal, as a Hitchcockian heroine would.

Still one watches it for Mason, before he has developed any overt mannerisms or been sadly type-cast as a villain. He seems to have made a number of these not-quite-up-to-snuff pictures in his career. Was he hard up? why didn't Hitchcock cast him and why didn't he ever accept a Powell & Pressburger offer? His presence on any number of these "grade-b" films, including the brief appearance in "Madame Bovary" (with Jenifer Jones), for example, or in the disappointing "Mayerling," adds a sense of gravitas to any of the proceedings in which he appeared, but the scripts and directors fail him, if not the cast.

Fortunately, he can be remembered for his appearance as Captain Nemo in "Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea," and Sir Randolph Nettleby in "Shooting Party," both of which tapped his natural dignity and aristocratic bearing and surrounded him with a worthy cast. See those for Mason at his best.

Of four stars****, two and a half.

Looks like RKO had a British productions unit that would explain the non-American cast, and perhaps also why the unusual number of three directors was used on a black and white programmer. Some of the sets are impressive, especially the tower used in the final scene. Also, Frederick Valt impresses as the sinister Schimler, along with a sparkling Clare Hamilton who's a dead ringer for her sister Maureen O'Hara and apparently just as talented; yet, this is her only screen appearance and I'm curious why.

Nonetheless, in my little book, the movie disappoints, mainly because it's set up as a suspense film, yet doesn't really manage much suspense. We're introduced to each of ten suspects, one of which is a Nazi agent. Ordinarily, the narrative would develop each so that the audience could sort through them, thereby heightening the suspense. That doesn't happen here. Instead, much time is given over to two unnecessarily long scenes with the intelligence chief and repeated episodes with the pompous Duclos who's really more annoying than amusing. In fact, the narrative meanders to the extent few suspects are developed, and when the agent is revealed, it's done in highly unsuspenseful, pedestrian fashion. The various parts simply don't gel, and I suspect it's due not only to a muddled adaptation of the Ambler novel, but also to each director having his own preoccupations.

It's also a different James Mason. Not the dark, brooding presence he is so good at. Instead, he's rather sunny and serene, even in tight spots. Frankly, his performance here could have been equaled by a dozen lesser actors and leading men. The movie does have its moments, particularly the seaside setting with the moody resort hotel. That, plus the premise of ten suspects, had me thinking of the 1945 Rene Clair mystery classic And Then There Were None. Unfortunately, the result here likely demonstrates that old adage about too many cooks.

JAMES MASON finds himself in a very Alfred Hitchcock situation in HOTEL RESERVE, that of an innocent man suspected of being a spy and having to prove his innocence by cooperating with the authorities to nab the real espionage agent. Sound familiar? Hitchcock used the same sort of innocent man frame-up in many films, most notably NORTH BY NORTHWEST.

But what's missing here, as others have commented, is that Hitch's expert touch is missing from the direction. The plot even has an exciting ending where hero and villain are atop a tall building and we know which one is going to meet his demise--but it's rather well done, except that Hitchcock would have thrown in some added touches for an even tighter bit of suspense.

Mason is very good in the leading role as the man caught in what appears to be a trap, while staying at the Hotel Reserve, where he must survey all the other guests to determine which one may have gotten their hands on his camera by mistake. The plot never becomes too overburdened with subplots (as some of these thrillers do), so it's all told in a brief hour and nineteen minutes.

HERBERT LOM is effectively cast as the hot-headed villain, with PATRICIA MEDINA not having much to do as his docile wife, and LUCIE MANNHEIM makes almost no impression at all as Mason's love interest, providing little more than a pretty face and a blank stare.

The improbable entrapment of the killer by police is a minor quibble, as is his method of temporary escape--but other than that, it's an acceptable spy thriller.

Summing up: Taut and tense with occasional bits of humor, it establishes why James Mason became a favorite with British and American audiences.