Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Tony Carter If you are a weary critic and insist that a remake of the original be more of the same but better, you will be wasting your time on this because it's played more kooky and comic than a suspenseful thriller.The movie keeps up a regular stream of witty patter, largely in the dialogue between her and Gould. The English pair of characters who only care about getting home to the cricket are a caricature to be sure, but earn their place. I could not say so much of the abducted Lansbury character, who seems to have graduated from the Dick Van Dyke school of accents. But it hardly matters, because her screen time is barely more than a cameo.This is very much Cybill's movie. She looks more beautiful than any mortal woman has a right being. Her performance veering between ditzy and wide-eyed confusion, gives ample time for the viewer to luxuriate for scene after scene in her large eyes... and that decidedly flattering dress. Anybody who already formed an infatuation for her from her long-running role in Moonlighting will not be disappointed.

TedMichaelMor Granted that probably only Alfred Hitchcock could successfully replicate one of his films, this remake works in its own way. I measure films on terms appropriate to the individual work. This version is more than competent; it entertained me. I very much enjoyed it.I agree that not only the stars but the entire case make this film. The technical aspects of it are flawless. The continuity is seamless, the dialogue surprising fresh, and the action believable. I do not think remaking this work is pointless—it is a variation and a pleasant and amusing one. I think that the pacing of this work is better than that of the original

gridoon There was no need for this movie to be made (but that is true for most remakes). The original is a classic and generally considered the best of Hitchcock's early British films. But if you forget about the comparisons and let this remake stand on its own, it's actually pretty decent: good-looking, beautifully scored, and well-cast, even in the secondary roles. The two leads are likably goofy (they do bring a 70's flavor to these 30's characters, which may or may not be to your taste), and male viewers will be glad to know that Cybill Shepherd spends the entire running time wearing a white dress that reveals her sexy back, arms and shoulders. If I can point one flaw in this movie, it's that the script doesn't build enough ambiguity - even people who don't know the story won't think for a moment that it could all be "in Cybill's head". But it's clear that the intention here was to create a light comedy-mystery, not a suspense classic. (**1/2)

bob the moo In an overcrowded hotel, many travellers await a train to their destination. Among them is Miss Froy - a school mistress, Robert Condon, a photographer for Life magazine and Amanda Kelly, a socialite on her way to meet her fiancée. When Amanda gets a knock on her head on the train, Miss Froy looks after her. She falls asleep for a while and wakes up to find Miss Froy gone. When she enquires, no one else can remember any such woman being on the train – did she imagine it or is something more sinister afoot?Of course it isn't rubbish but no matter how "OK" this film it, it simply isn't comparable to the much, much better Hitchcock original – sadly a statement that I consider true of all aspects of the film. The plot is held as in the original but for this story to work the delivery needs to be good. Hitchcock did it well producing a pacy and enjoyable film that was light but engaging at the same time. Here the film isn't too much longer than the original but my gosh it drags by comparison. The lack of tension was a real surprise to me and the film failed to draw out the mystery – of course I knew it was not in Amanda's head but I do when I watch the original as well – this familiarity doesn't totally account for the lack of tension in the film generally, that is more to do with the lack of urgency and the starry feel of the film generally. Filmed in lush colours and a postcard presentation of Europe the film looks professional but the brightness undercuts the tension yet again. Page generally doesn't do much with the direction to help the material or cast out – it all looks OK but doesn't do that much. Viewers who have not seen the original might enjoy it but anyone coming to it second will struggle to find much added value in this retread.Gould and Shepherd both overegg their performances and lean too heavily on the side of humour without doing enough on the side of the mystery. Of course neither of them are helped by their lack of chemistry with one another. There is no spark at all and they generally just bluster around each other. Lansbury is OK as the lady of the title but you can't help feel that she's doesn't really deserve to share the same role as the much better Witty. Lowe and Charmichael dominate with a rerun of the amusing English clichés from the original although Lom is worth a look. The rest of the cast however, just fill in the background without too much effort or style.Overall this is a distracting and OK film in its own right but I simply cannot see any reason why any viewer would find this a more worthwhile venture than the original. In every way, from direction and tone through to performances and cinematography, the film is a poor photocopy of the original. If you haven't seen it then you should be watching that; if you have seen it then I don't understand why beyond a morbid sense of curiosity, you'd want to watch this remake.