rotcev

Over all I found this TV movie an enjoyable, fast paced, man on the run tale with plenty of suspense, mystery, intrigue, tragedy and an enjoyable love story.

If you are a fan of the Hitchcock version, you may also not like this one because it lacks the humour, wit and cleaver dialogue and many of the plot elements he introduced into his film. If you loved the book, you will miss many of the episodic incidents that keep the story interesting to a reader. In some ways this version is closer to the book than Hitchcock's movie, but it also incorporates some of Hitchcock's story changes and then departs even further from the book by updating it, trimming it down and introducing still other new story lines. Of particular note is an interesting, emotional twist to the ending.

If you don't like these changes, one must remember that Hitchcock often took only the basic ideas from a book or story and then made major changes to develop his films. A book is not a movie and what works for a book does not always work in a movie. Hitchcock's deviations from the story in the book were enormous.

There also are a significant number of images borrowed from Hitchcock movies and excellent development of suspense using cutting, moving camera, music and other techniques that are all Hitchcockian. In the love story, there is a kiss, that could have been greatly enhanced if the director had continued using Hitchcock technique and filmed it like the famous kiss in the film TO CATCH A THIEF.

The director did a good overall job especially at building suspense and keeping the fast pace of the first half of the film. The acting is not spectacular but adequate for a TV movie. Certainly the leads pale compared to Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll from the 1935 movie but that may be mainly because of the script. My most serious criticism is that this film lacks humour and witty dialogue and I blame that on the script writer.

I think this movie stacks up reasonably well compared to the 1959 or 1978 versions but lacks luster when compared to the Hitchcock classic of 1935. In conclusion, I must say that I liked it --- particularly the the good overall story, the fast pace and suspense and the interesting plot elements. It does drag a bit after the half way point but that is needed to develop the characters as well as the love story and so the audience can figure out what is going on. Hitchcock would have loved how the director keeps a fast pace, develops and maintains suspense and manipulates the audience emotionally at the end.

• Vic (Rotcev)

Is it worth it to buy this movie? To a Hitchcock fanatic like myself (Vic Evans)I would say "Yes!" but to any person other than a movie historian I would say "Forget it!"

It is a collection of skits and songs with a bit of comedy in the form of a London stage musical and comedy "Vaudeville" revue. Revues like this one have been done on the London stage from time to time since Vaudeville days. I remember seeing one in London in 1974 called "Carry On London" with Sid James and many other members of the "Carry On" movie comedy crew.

"Elstree Calling" (1930) is presented in the form of a very early live TV broadcast hosted by Tommy Handley. You also see a family attempting to tune into this program. Every so often between skits, you see how they are making out. They experience great difficulty throughout the show. The picture comes and goes as they attempt to adjust the set. The TV set even blows up and is later repaired. By the end of the presentation, the reception finally is restored and the program ends. The problems with this new medium (television) is one of the running jokes.

To the audiences of today it is of little interest. The singing, dancing and comedy is standard for this type of English variety show of the day but terrible by today's standards. For dancing, think of "The Pleasure Garden" as a comparison. Those familiar with Hitchcock's work may remember "Mr. Memory" from "The Thirty-Nine Steps". The music hall in that film is a similar setting. Alfred Hitchcock said to Francois Truffaut about this film - `Not good.'

There is little evidence of Hitchcock except perhaps for a short scene about a murder of the "wrong man". You should recognise the Hitchcock touch in it.

While I don't think anyone knows for sure, I have read that Alfred Hitchcock may have been responsible for the TV broadcast/TV viewing family framework that links the skits together and a running gag with Donald Calthrop attempting to recite Shakespeare periodically throughout the broadcast.

Best wishes,

Vic Evans (marmalade_man [NOSPAM] at yahoo.com