Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

One of my all time favorites.

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

There's no need to get excited when you see George Axelrod listed in the credits as the screenwriter, for this is a very tepid remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic which comes off second best in all respects. At least no attempt has been made to update the plot. Unfortunately, it just seems far more ridiculous in color and widescreen. The character changes are also no improvement. Admittedly, the original movie was a bit too talky, but this version positively wallows in inconsequential dialogue. Just about all the roles have been built up with more talk, but there is no corresponding increase in the action sequences, and the direction, alas, is totally unimaginative. Admittedly, some of the action is effectively managed, particularly the fight on board the train, but the climax is run of the mill. The director's main concern is obviously to bring every word of Axelrod's indifferent dialogue to viewers' ears. The actors are also hampered by the director's unimaginative use of close-ups which draw further attention to the weak script. Both Eliott Gould and Cybill Shepherd try hard to overcome all the drawbacks, but with not a great deal of success. In any case, this version is far to long for its thin plot. The colorful photography doesn't help either. It conveys about as much atmosphere and suspense as pink frosting on a butter cake. True, production values are good, but it's the story that counts, not the scenery.

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.

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.

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!