jcoppeto001

This version of "The Great Impersonation" sticks to the book rather well. By contrast, the 1942 version is an extremely loose interpretation and obviously World War II propaganda. The acting is fine and the dialog interesting. The casting is excellent. This movie is based on what is supposed to be Oppenheim's greatest novel. I read the novel and thought it was mediocre. For its time, the movie, in my opinion, actually outshone the novel. Both the 1935 and 1942 versions of the novel are unapologetic melodramas, but the 1935 version has the more interesting and complex plot. However, ideally one should watch each and decide for oneself.

This is the definitive movie version of the story. The later movie version pales by comparison. The casting is terrific. The plot is plausible. The pacing is perfect. The settings were simple yet convincing. The acting is right on the button. Basil Rathbone is extraordinary in what may be one of his finest performances. Hitchock could not have directed it any better. The psychopathology is presented in a valid way, eschewing melodrama. This version is uncompromisingly true to the meaning and the tone of Christie's creation. Just as importantly the dialogue does not insult your intelligence. The final scene is intense yet controlled and makes one yearn for these well-done black and white movies in contrast to the melodramatic, syrupy Technicolor endings we get nowadays.

This was a rather pedestrian version of the Agatha Christie short story thriller (Philomel Cottage). Of course, the original short story confined itself to the time the couple spent on their honeymoon, although the subsequent adapted theater play expanded on the plot. Sylvia Sidney came off as a kind of Betty Davis type with a distracting edge to her delivery. John Hodiak's performance started off with subtlety but towards the end it deteriorated into melodrama. I agree with another reviewer that I couldn't help thinking that this would have gotten a much better treatment from Alfred Hitchcock. The plot development was implausible at times. Although the beginning was cogent and mood-setting, I was disappointed by the lack of subtlety in the ending, which differed from the Christie ending. The story should have been about the psychology of predator and prey, but that aspect was muted. I have not read the theater play, so I don't know how its ending compared to the wonderful Christie ending.