ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Lebowskidoo Sounds like a crazy idea, remaking Hitchcock, but this is not one of his sacred cows like Psycho, so the pressure's off.The story is the same and told well. An older lady (Angela Lansbury) disappears on a train in Europe before World War II after befriending an American girl (Cybill Shepherd), who searches for her with help from another American on board (Elliott Gould).I just watched both versions back-to-back (apparently there's a 2013 TV version too) and found this remake to be a charming romp, fun and scenic and fairly true to the original.Was it just fate or what, that they cast Angela Lansbury as an English nanny? She's perfect.I think the original had better wacky banter between the two leads, but this is not a shabby effort at all.

jjgrimes-2 There's a strong tendency to compare Hitchcock's version of "The Lady Vanishes" with the 1979 version starring Elliot Gould, Cybill Shepherd, and Angela Lansbury. There's no need to do so. Both have the same title but entirely different moods. This doesn't make one "better" or "worse" than the other. They just should be judged on their own merits. Both are thrillers, one more somber and tense, and the latter version more of a melodramatic mystery with comedic touches. What I would suggest is that the viewer simply watch both versions, recognizing the strong and weak points of each. Both are enjoyable, but to interject a personal note, I tend to lean toward this 1979 version for its tone that's more like other mystery films such as "Charade" or "North By Northwest". Enjoy them both as different cinematic expressions and let others worry about comparisons.

TheLittleSongbird I will admit I do prefer the Hitchcock original, however one thing I did prefer about the remake is that it is slicker. You may argue you shouldn't compare it to the Hitchcock original, and by the way Hitchock is my favourite director, but the thing is people do. The remake doesn't quite have the charm of its original, and I do think it is to do with the fact that the screenplay at times is weak, the director is no Hitchcock and the film does meander in the last twenty minutes. On the other hand, it is stylishly done, with stunning cinematography and lavish costumes. The story is an interesting concept, and I did find the film interesting and a pleasant watch overall. The music by the way is outstanding, very richly scored and the main theme sticks in your head for a very long time. The performances are mostly not at all bad. Angela Lansbury is marvellous as Miss Froy, despite her limited screen time. Herbert Lom also impresses as usual, and while Cybill Sheppard has given better performances, she did look absolutely beautiful. In fact the only actor who disappointed was Elliot Gould, he had the handsome screen presence but he didn't quite convince, and just for the record, his dialogue for me was the weakest of the film. All in all, slick, underrated and well done remake, but if I were to compare the two, I would say the original was better. 7/10 Bethany Cox

pawebster The story is silly -- well, preposterous really, but it's great fun.I agree that the Shepherd and Gould are a bit tiresome and overdone, but in fact, on the whole, they're fun too.The best feature of the film is Angela Lansbury. She is brilliant as the nanny, catching every nuance with perfection, and should have had some kind of award for her performance.The cricket fans are good and Gerald Harper is also convincing and chilling as the hard-hearted adulterer.It is refreshing to see a film where there are no computer effects, and where real locations are used. I don't think we'll see too many films made this way again.