User reviews

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)

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.

It's an unpopular and even downright blasphemous idea to remake a great Alfred Hitchcock classic. It is now, and it definitely was in the late 70s, when the Master of Suspense himself was still alive. "The Lady Vanishes" flopped at the box office, received harshly negative reviews, was the symbolical last effort of Hammer Studios, and still isn't very appreciated nowadays based on the other user-comments around here.

And yet, I personally feel that "The Lady Vanishes" deserves a bit more recognition and praise, and this for the plain and simple fact that I found it very amusing. The plot is still compelling four decades later, the cast is tremendous, Cybill Shepard never looked more gorgeous than here in her white dress, and random conversations about cricket were never as funny.

Reverting to comparisons between this version and Hitchcock's classic is inevitable, though. The 1979 update is undeniably weaker for two reasons. First, because here there never is any doubt whether there was a Miss Froy who suddenly vanishes from the train departing from Bavaria. Shepard's character Kelly is very certain of herself and doesn't allow anyone to convince her otherwise, and it also doesn't help that we follow Miss Froy (Angela Lansbury) throughout the entire "Sound of Music" reminiscent opening credit sequences as she walks down a mountain and checks into a hotel. Secondly, there's the hindsight effect. What I mean by this is that Hitchcock's original was made and released in 1938; - slightly more than a year before the outbreak of WWII. Hitch made fabulous use of the contemporary political tensions and social unrest, and it greatly benefitted the atmosphere of his film. Anthony Page, like every other director since 1945, is forced to approach the plot with hindsight and that simply cannot be as intense.

Never mind the negativity, though, and enjoy "The Lady Vanishes" with all its misplaced comedy and unspectacular action. Cybill's best line: "despite your ridiculous haircut, I'm falling for you". Because, let's face it, Elliot Gould's hair is quite silly.

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.

I haven't seen the original but I watched this with 1 hour delay on two channels simultaneously, I was at home with a cold at the time and feeling very sorry for myself. Anyway, if you would just put the two leads aside for a moment (although Eliot Gould was SO cute in the movie and Cybil Shepperd did the visual pun of Marilyn Monroe on the air vent very well when she gets out of the train...) The thing I really liked about this film were the characters of Charters and Caldicott - they made me laugh hysterically - there they are drinking tea - understating this understating that - then suddenly.....they are really terrific minor characters. I would love a whole film on those two. Very affectionate look at English manners. ARTHUR LOWE MADE ME FORGET HOW ILL I FELT!

Its inevitable that this would be compared to Hitchcock's 1938 original but for me there are many pleasures to be had in this elegant comedy-thriller. Douglas Slocombe's Panavision photography is wonderful and the playing of all involved is beautifully poised. George Axelrod's reworking of Sidney Gilliat's screenplay adds a nice screwball touch with his one-liners and Ian Carmichael and Arthur Lowe as the cricket-obsessed British tourists add humanity to their chauvinistic bullishness. And as a self-confessed Angela Lansbury fan I of course relished her depiction of Miss Froy. On a big cinema screen this looks terrific.

Remake of a British 1938 Michael Redgrave film with Dame Mae Witty and Margaret Lockwood. The 1979 version, done as a Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould vehicle, pushes mainly its comedic/farcical elements instead of it being s legitimate mystery itself. The political intrigues and treacheries of the years between the First and Second World Wars made a better basis for the 1938 film than the 1979 film had. Alfred Hitchcock had still been in Britain when his 1938 film was made. Hitchcock had a sure hand utilizing the looming dangers and unease of the time, just one year prior to Britain's actual 1939 entry into WWII. The 1979 film isn't rotten but it simply doesn't hold up when weighed against Hitchcock's original. If you watch the 1979 movie, do so expecting a comedy not a mystery, and do so before you ever have seen the Hitchcock version.

Waste of time. The beginning sounds promising, however as the movie progresses it gets worse and worse. There was supposed to be a humour in it, which turned out to be silly and gone completely wrong. So disappointing

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

Ugh! What a mess! Only Angela Lansbury among the major cast members stands out. Cybill Shepherd seems to have the "madcap" part down, but too often she is merely silly rather than funny. As for Elliott Gould, he seems completely miscast, and acts as if he wandered in from another movie. This is hardly an improvement of -- or even an enlightening insight into -- the Hitchcock original. Only intermittently entertaining, but, by all means, see it if you're a Lansbury fan : she's wonderful!

Much as I like and possess the DVD of the original Hitchcock version, this remake is a much better job. It avoids many of the tedious moments of the original film, especially during the first half hour or so in the hotel, and introduces a lot more humour. I mean Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael are nothing short of EXCELLENT, far funnier than the tedious idiots of the original. In addition we have better sound quality, superb picture quality, an extremely sexy Cybill Sheppard and a BEAUTIFUL sound track !! What more could you ask. I know little about the main mail character Elliot Gould and indeed found his performance the least interesting, but this is more than compensated for by the other performances. The Nazi Helmut played his role very well and rendered himself thoroughly dislikeable. And I have always loved Angela Lansbury in whatever rôle I have seen her. This is good quality cinematic entertainment from 1979, without special effects, something which is in very short supply in these initial years of the twenty first century. Thank God it's been issued on a DVD !

Cybill Shepherd's performance in this movie is so bad, it overshadows the rest of the movie. I've seen more character depth in the chorus of a high school musical! Angela Lansbury was spot on in her performance, though. Too bad the pre-"Moonlighting" Cybill had to go and muck it up.

The settings were beautiful, and beautifully photographed, but they weren't enough to save this train wreck (pardon the pun). There just didn't seem to be enough tension between the characters who were "in" on the plot and those who were oblivious to it.

I'd watch the original (or a Finnish comedy with Polish subtitles) before I'd ever watch this again.

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.

This is an unnecessary remake of the Hitchcock original. The supporting cast are all excellent time served British actors and Gerald Harper, Ian Carmichael and Arthur Lowe bring a delicious energy to the proceedings.

Unfortunately they are onscreen far less than the two leads who are totally miscast.

Elliott Gould acts as though he has wandered in from another film and doesn't know that he is in a period piece but he can actually emote.

Cybill Shepherd is terrible. She is contemporary, which might be forgivable if she could actually act, but she switches from detached and dull to wild overacting without being convincing at either.

Watchable on a slow day but if you haven't seen it you haven't missed much.

Just finished watching the 1979 and 1939 versions. Hands down the 1979 version . I believe wins. The acting sparkles and I am a great fan of Cybill Shepherd. As screwball comedies go, this is of the first water.

I think the main problem with the film is the casting of the leads against the screenplay.

Gould is too old and somewhat fey and Shepherd is acting as though she were in a Carole Lombard film.

The leads in the original film gave the roles more depth; perhaps it is also the fault of the screenplay.

The overall production values are good and the supporting cast is wonderful especially Lansbury, of course, and Ian Carmichael--Lord Peter Wimsey in scenes with Cybill Shepherd!.

I would buy this on DVD if available.

Hammer's lamentable remake of a Hitchcock classic and unsurprisingly the studio's last picture – at least until their recent reinvention as a purveyor of horror fare. THE LADY VANISHES is an odd film indeed, one that veers unevenly between comedy, mystery and thrills and never really succeeds in any of those fields: the comedy's unfunny, the mystery's obvious and the thrills muted. It doesn't help that the lead actress – Cybill Shepherd – is horribly miscast, giving a performance so awful that some viewers may turn off because of her alone.

Then again, Shepherd may not be entirely at fault – I struggle to think of an alternative actress who could have brought her shrill, screechy character to life. I generally enjoy films set aboard trains, planes, boats etc. but this one never makes good use of the location and the constant moving between carriages and compartments becomes repetitive in the extreme (although a late stage train-climbing stunt sequence is breathtakingly good).

Elliott Gould seems distinctly embarrassed by his presence here and can do nothing with his character, while Angela Lansbury seems to think she's still in BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS and gives a patronising turn. It's left to the Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael to supply some genuine humour, although sadly their characters are ill-utilised and kept off-screen for the most part. THE LADY VANISHES marks an ignoble end for a once-fine studio and languishes today as a deservedly forgotten oddity.

Anyone familiar with the life story of the former Hollywood actress and much married wealthy heiress blonde beauty Virginia Cherrill, and her back story will soon realise that Cybill Shepherd's character is based on her. They even look like twin sisters. Shepherd makes numerous references to facts from Cherrill's life, third marriage and even the family name that Shepherd uses is exactly that from Cherrill's third marriage, (though it's used only once in the film and not listed in the character list).

Angela Lansbury plays a nanny turned spy who is attempting to get back to Britain with some vital information. Set in Pre-WWII Germany this movie chronicles the trip of Cybill Shepherds character back to the UK to be reunited with her fiancé. On the train she befriends Ms. Froy and another American (played by Elliott Gould). However, things go awry when Ms. Froy seemingly vanishes into thin air and nobody on the train seems to have any memory of her. Is Shepherds character losing her marbles? - Gould certainly seems to think so...that is until he spots something out of the train window for a fleeting second. Its a superb story and very satisfying. I really enjoy this charming thriller.

This is an unnecessary remake of a Hitchcock classic. It does not improve upon the original in any way. It co-stars an actor (Elliott Gould) I don't particularly care for. I can't think of one thing about this movie that would justify recommending it over the original film. And yet, I like the damn thing. I can't for the life of me explain it in any intelligent critical terms. I just enjoy watching it. It breezes by and I find the familiar elements kind of cozy instead of annoying like with most remakes of classics. I don't expect 99% of people will feel the same way. Maybe a few years ago even I wouldn't have liked it. But I do now. Hopefully Hitchcock has a roomy grave in which to roll over.

This film is just a horrible remake of the classic 1938 original by Alfred Hitchcock which contains a first class cast from top to bottom and superior editing and cinematography. Cybil Shepherd is amazingly terrible and completely unconvincing in the lead role. Do not waste your time renting and watching this flick. Find the original in the Criterion version and enjoy a great and suspenseful yarn that will live forever.