Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

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.

Dennis Bell A real rattletrap of a movie, in which all the parts clank like mad but can't mesh. Jack Palance is poorly used in a script that has him playing from moment to moment the grim stoic, man of the world, homesick patriot, lovesick romantic, and half a dozen additional stereotypes. He spends most of the time literally dragging around Joan Fontaine and Corrine Calvet while on the run from both the police and black marketeers. The plot is a slice of Cold War tripe in which embargoed American war surplus material is being sold to the Russians. Nobody in the cast looks entirely comfortable at any point, and neither will the viewer.

MartinHafer Apart from being filmed in 3D, there isn't a whole lot to distinguish "Flight to Tangier". It's an action-adventure film with very little action and it's, at best, a time passer. Aside from Joan Fontaine, it's mostly filled with B-list actors and just left me flat.When the film begins, a DC-3 airplane crashes at an airport in the international city of Tangier*. Oddly, however, no bodies are found in the wreck...and two folks, Susan and Gil (Joan Fontaine and Jack Palance) are caught by the police looking through the wreckage. Soon the police are giving them grief...as are some criminals and the pair want answers. What happened to the pilot and why?!It's weird but the film features some chases...and no one runs or really chases. It all seems very low energy and almost slow motion...and the film never rose above the level of mediocre at any point.

Spikeopath Written and directed by Charles Marquis Warren, Flight to Tangier stars Joan Fontaine, Jack Palance, Corinne Calvet and Robert Douglas. Music is by Paul Sawtell and cinematography by Ray Rennahan. Tangier airport, and a group of people await the arrival of as plane from behind the Iron Curtain. When said plane crashes and burns, it is found that there are no survivors or indeed any corpses. So exactly where is the missing courier worth $3 million? And just exactly what do these group of people have to do with the crashed plane?Someone somewhere in a big room full of executives at Paramount Pictures thought this was going to be a great Cold War type thriller. A drama awash with spies, black market dastards, shifty femmes and undercover operatives. Unfortunately what follows is immeasurably dull. A bunch of folk stand around musing about politico guff, then there's a half hearted chase sequence, some more politico guff, another lame chase sequence, and on it goes in the same fashion until the inevitable tepid ending closes the whole sorry picture down.Fontaine, looking lovely as usual, and Palance give it plenty of gusto, while the Technicolor is nice to take in. But once the poorly scripted contrivances start to take precedence over character dynamics, and the action scenes begin to bore, you realise you have been cheated and feel the need to strangle one of those Paramount executives. So avoid unless you suffer from insomnia. 3/10

secondtake Flight to Tangiers (1953)An odd Technicolor movie, not yet fully widescreen, with the impeccable Joan Fontaine being impeccable, and Jack Palance as his suspicious, quirky self. The setting is Tangiers, though the shooting is all in Hollywood. This is no Casablanca, for sure, despite the mixture of American expatriates in a North African port city. (There is even a point when Fontaine says, "America," and Palance clarifies, "Lisbon, then America," just as in Casablanca.)The plot overall gets far more complex than it needs to be, with a plane going down in an exciting beginning and then a whole slew of people having some interest in what went missing in the wreckage. The complexities are told more than shown (just by having characters talk to each other). As much as I wanted to love this movie (as much as I love Fontaine), I couldn't do it. And it even looks good--not only the color, but the light and sets."In America, do they think you're beautiful?" says a European beauty to the American Joan Fontaine."I don't know," Fontaine replies, and it sums her up, especially a decade after her flirting with the Academy Awards (she won one). I dwell on this because Fontaine rises above this middling movie. And there is an odd competition between the Euro girl and the American one, and Fontaine is made to outclass her even though the other is more clearly a young, voluptuous type. It's mostly silly stuff.The gorgeously lit night scenes, far too perfect for location shooting of the time, and the careful, luxuriating pace are wonderful in their own way. The color (including the famous Technicolor control of set design) is terrific in a way you forget is possible with modern movies, which look good but simply different than these 40s and 50s gems. One great little moment (that almost gives away the mood in the shooting behind the camera) is at 1:25:10 where the guy smoking and walking toward flicks the cigarette right at the lens. I guess this is the level of boredom I was at, too, noticing and caring. But the plot really doesn't hold water long enough to suck you in or make the movie come alive. The arms dealing, backstabbing, foreign intrigue stuff is not enough in itself, and when they drop the phrase "Iron Curtain" into the mix it feels like a last minute add on, not relating to the events in North Africa at all. The director, by the way, Charles Marquis Warren, is also the writer, and he has a slim reputation on both counts. This is one reason why. Fontaine devotees, give this a close look. Jack Palance devotee? Less essential, for sure, but interesting. The rest of you, I'm not sure I'd recommend it in particular.