One wonders what this movie would have become if Hitchcock had gotten his hands on it. Would he have revved up the plot, tightened up the script, recast some of the characters, put in a highway chase over the countryside interrupted by sheep, added a more appealing female interest for Mason? The climb up to the roof at the end, the strong lighting and direct closeups, the art and photographic direction(seemingly uncredited to one of the directors),as well as the music score and the general "look" of the film, not to mention James Mason's compelling presence all had the ingredients for a potential Hitchcockian thriller, but something is missing here. The plot's not that complicated (certainly not like "The Lady Vanishes") and there seems not to be enough risk or sense of danger (certainly not like "The 39 Steps")to Mason's life, although there is suspense and surprise along the way. One big weakness is the supporting cast. The young lady's character (can't even remember her name) isn't developed enough, nor does she have sufficient charm or sex appeal, as a Hitchcockian heroine would.
Still one watches it for Mason, before he has developed any overt mannerisms or been sadly type-cast as a villain. He seems to have made a number of these not-quite-up-to-snuff pictures in his career. Was he hard up? why didn't Hitchcock cast him and why didn't he ever accept a Powell & Pressburger offer? His presence on any number of these "grade-b" films, including the brief appearance in "Madame Bovary" (with Jenifer Jones), for example, or in the disappointing "Mayerling," adds a sense of gravitas to any of the proceedings in which he appeared, but the scripts and directors fail him, if not the cast.
Fortunately, he can be remembered for his appearance as Captain Nemo in "Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea," and Sir Randolph Nettleby in "Shooting Party," both of which tapped his natural dignity and aristocratic bearing and surrounded him with a worthy cast. See those for Mason at his best.
Of four stars****, two and a half.
