Konterr Brilliant and touching

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

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

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.

artboy34 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.

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

Ilovehandbagsandshoes 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!