craig hill
Those who type Dark Journey "crawls" and makes dunderheads like them yawn incessantly, as if that's the fault of this brilliantly written and acted film and not them, or that the unfolding story is murky, which it clearly is, to them, do not have a clue that great films like this leave a lot of what is happening unsaid, just as the two principals, the characters played by Veidt and Leigh do in their carefully spoken dialogue. These popcorn shovelers expect everything to be explained to their simple little linear minds and wouldn't grasp the nuance even after all they have missed were explained to them. They are not ready to review the matinee, let alone the feature in prime time. The chess game is beyond them and honestly to read their garbage makes me wonder if they could ever master checkers. Be forewarned, if you, like them, are too dumb to grasp the understated intelligence the film insists you likewise share, don't bother watching it either. If however you have the discerning smarts enough to be thrilled by complex cat and mouse games spoken virtually in code throughout this film, please have a whack at Dark Journey. You may enjoy the deep satisfaction guessing along with the plot and understanding where the key, quiet pivot points appear without dramatic music cues and you, like this lucky writer, will be fabulously impressed by this sadly forgotten jewel.
Cristi_Ciopron
DARK JOURNEY begins suspenseful but light—hearted, with quite a few mild, almost homely, yet snappy one—liners and vignettes of social life, games, dancing and flirting, unlike the suggestions of the title; it takes a third of the movie for us to find out that the broad is suspected by her people. The jokes are affectionately funny, about ass, plainness in women, taxing services, attempts at a clever dialog, as a matter of fact quite enjoyable. The murder doesn't occur until the half of the movie.This is a spy yarn, more than a romance.Leigh was very cute, very endearing. This movie deserves being seen—first of all, as a Leigh movie—then, as a spy thriller, quite dynamic, with clearheaded direction from Saville, a nice score and likable storytelling.In the Cherry Orchid, people smoked happily.Veidt looks better in the bluish, pastel, stylish movie poster; while in the movie, he's a decrepit oldster, JIGĂRIT, LIHNIT. For Veidt's trick with the girls, I would of needed subtitles, as for the other scenes hushed, or spoken in a low—voice or hushed in confidential voice. Veidt does a larger—than—life character, largely annoying, anyway creepy and repulsive, a vaudeville spy, a Fracasse, largely disappointing; in most cases, I am for type playing, and typical patterns, and I think about spies as preferably _unconspicuous, unobtrusive, while Veidt looked, here at least, as a transvestite madam.This baron looked like a creep, the performance, meant of a classy seducer and consummate dandy, seems a cross between Boyer—who was a '30s movie star—and Stroheim, who was uglier than Veidt, but immeasurably better. It's Expressionism transposed. Judging from this role only, Veidt's palette was a rather narrow one—the things he could put to real use in the Expressionist _cinematograph, the things which work there . He knew how to look—menacing, tenebrous, gloomy, etc., all output—all expressed. He already belonged to a _revolute _cinematograph, by then abolished, and here he brings, in this Saville thriller made 75 yrs ago, all that style, in all its desuetude. Yet in the few, sparse romance scenes, Veidt's Expressionist fanciness could shine through—and does. In those few moments, when the screen really turns silver, he's good.The Prussian officer and nobleman was one of the current tropes between the two World Wars.The title reminded me of Sarah Weinman's 'Dark Passages', which is almost as cool.My distinct impression, during the movie, was that the espionage plot was crystal clear, and quite good, quite engrossing—anyway, enjoyably familiar as feel; I see that other reviewers here take a less favorable view of the plot. I can't second them. The movie is much more an espionage thriller, than a romance, and more of a clearheaded, enjoyable thriller, than of an espionage puzzle. It isn't a puzzle, even the suspense seems treated rather casually, if it can be such a thing—as if tight in execution, while loose in intention—but the whole espionage story is rather unpretentious, seemly more interested in spying tricks and gadgets, in providing a bit of information about how these things used to be done—not telling a stunning story, because the story itself is functional, it serves the lead, it's but a vehicle, because the movie primarily aims at showcasing a young actress; it's a V. Leigh vehicle. The movie is less interested in telling a story, than in showcasing the leading actress; so, what you got is a simple story, more inside looks at spying techniques than a spy story, therefore: a simple story, well and concisely, tautly told. There is even less romance, than espionage; it's all a showcase. But the few things that have to be told, are well told, and the clarity is refreshing. So, no, no murkiness.
Neil Doyle
DARK JOURNEY is a wearisome WWI spy melodrama teaming two wonderful stars, both seen to better advantage in many other films. VIVIEN LEIGH is certainly ready for all of her close-ups but her role is uninteresting even though she's supposed to be a French spy posing as a German spy for the Swiss government.The plot, as everyone else seems to have said, is confusing and totally lacking the requisite suspense required to keep a viewer tuned in. It gets off to a slow and murky start on the foggy seas and stays slow and murky for too much of its running time.Surprisingly, CONRAD VEIDT fails to be charismatic as the romantic lead, nor is he as dangerous as he usually is in these sort of movies which comes as a letdown to anyone who admired the Nazis he played in many a war movie. It's probably his least colorful role. Likewise, Vivien Leigh can do very little with her role and reportedly stated that she was disappointed in the script and found it confusing. So did I.It's all done in veddy British style, circa 1930s, and lacks what might be called the Hitchcock touch. Too bad. Maybe a director of his sort could have made something interesting out of this espionage yarn. Victor Saville fails to give it tension. It has all the suspense of a rubber band about to snap.It's a yawner. Even Leigh and Veidt (top-billed, by the way), can't save it from sinking.
