GusF Based on the 1944 short story "Beware of the Dog" by Roald Dahl, this is a superb World War II thriller which is brilliantly written and directed by George Seaton. It concerns a US Army major named Jeff Pike who is kidnapped by the Nazis in Lisbon on June 1, 1944. In the hope of learning the date and location of the imminent Allied invasion, they stage an elaborate hoax to convince him that it is in fact 1950 and that he is in a United States military hospital in occupied Germany, having lost his memory of the last six years. I only learned of the film's existence two weeks ago but I am fairly certain that it inspired the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode "Future Imperfect" and the "Stargate SG-1" episode "Out of Mind", both of which have similar premises.James Garner gives one of his best performances as Pike, a fiercely intelligent man whose extensive training in resisting interrogation techniques is what makes it necessary for the Nazis to go to such measures. The hoax is an extremely convincing one and he falls for it hook, line and sinker until he realises that he still has a paper cut that he received the day before he was kidnapped. Eva Marie Saint is likewise excellent as Anna Hedler, a concentration camp inmate who was recruited into the scheme because she was a nurse and could speak English. She pretends to be Pike's wife, which was a masterstroke on the Nazis' part as it means that Pike is far more willing to open up to her. After he realises the truth, she describes her horrific experiences in Auschwitz and Ravensbrück. Although she did not earn Pike's sympathy, at least initially, she certainly earned mine. I doubt that there is anyone who would not do as she did to prevent themselves being sent back to a concentration camp. As the film progresses and they prepare to make their escape to Switzerland, however, Pike warms to her and there is a nice, very understated love story between them. They are separated in the film's final scene but it is strongly hinted that she has fallen in love with him and perhaps the same is true of him.The best character in the film, however, is Major Walter Gerber, a brilliant American-born German doctor who came up with the amnesia hoax. Rod Taylor was certainly cast against type as a Nazi but he excels in the role. Gerber confides in Pike that he first developed the idea as a way of helping shell shocked soldiers who had returned from the Eastern Front recover from their ordeal but that, as so often happens, it was perverted by the military industrial complex. Throughout the film, Gerber finds himself in conflict with the SS Standartenführer Otto Schack, played very effectively by a suitably creepy Werner Peters. As he observes repeatedly, Schack is a practical man. When it appears that Gerber's scheme will fail, he is completely against it. When it appears that it will succeed, he tries to take half the credit. He is a survivor, telling Gerber at one point that he is content to a follower as opposed to a leader since it is safer not to stand out from the crowd. Gerber is not a good man by any means but he shows occasional glimmers of conscience. Most notably, he helps Pike and Anna to escape. However, he does so not out of the goodness of his heart but as an act of revenge against Schack after he learns that he is to be arrested. This is highly reminiscent of the final scenes of "Spartacus" in which Gracchus helps the title character's wife Varinia and their newborn son escape from Rome as a final victory over his rival Crassus. I'd be surprised if it was not directly inspired by that film. The film also has nice appearances from Alan Napier, Oscar Beregi, Jr., John Banner (who is a laugh riot), Celia Lovsky, Martin Kosleck and D-Day veteran James Doohan.The audience is aware from the beginning that it is a hoax but there is a terrific sense of tension as we wait for Pike to reveal the details of D-Day and to figure out that he is being deceived, both of which happen in due course. In the Nazis' fantasy version of 1950, FDR is still alive and his second vice president Henry A. Wallace succeeded him as President, the Wehrmacht staged a coup by killing Hitler, Goebbels and Goering in one fell swoop and surrendered to the Allies in November 1944, the Pacific War ended three months later and Himmler was executed for war crimes. With the exception of the quick and easy victory in the Pacific (since none of the characters involved knew of the atomic bomb), these were all reasonable and plausible speculations of what could have happened after D-Day and Pike takes it all as Gospel as he has no reason to doubt it. Under the circumstances, the filmmakers really had no choice but to let the audience in on the secret but it was to the film's advantage in any event. It served to make Pike a more sympathetic character as I kept hoping that he would see through the deception before revealing the details of the invasion plan. In a very clever move, the film makes great use of the fact that the invasion was planned for June 5 but was postponed for a day due to the dreadful weather in the English Channel. It is a nice reminder that history is often dramatic enough without inventing things. Even after the hoax is revealed to Pike, however, the same high level of tension is maintained.Overall, this is an excellent film which is never less than completely engrossing and which respects the audience's intelligence.

secondtake 36 Hours (1965)There is a huge trick to this sparkling, powerful movie. And some might say the trick is too much. But think of the 1962 "Manchurian Candidate" and you have an idea what level of inventive storytelling is at work, and which indeed works. "36 Hours" is not as sensational as that film earlier, and for that reason not as memorable. But in some ways it's equal to it. The acting, especially by the four main leads, is first rate. It's convincing in a plot that takes some work to be convincing. There are hints here of the landmark television series "The Prisoner" at first, too (that series launched in 1967 but McGoohan, the central planner of "The Prisoner," outlined it in a 1965 interview!).At first you think this will be another war film, with James Garner playing a half-convincing top military adviser and courier (he's too young, too good looking, and far too casual). But then he gets kidnapped and the twists that follow are what make the movie. Garner gets better and better in his role, playing the game several ways as it unfolds. At his side is Eva Marie Saint, who is excellent even down to a fair middle-European accent. A charming and disarming German doctor played by Rod Taylor is key to this whole charade, as he, too, plays two sides to a coin. The more severely obvious SS officer (Werner Peters) is brilliant, and not a caricature, and he represents the whole German evil machine circa 1944. Or is it 1950? Keep a grip on reality as you watch. There are some small subtle cues as you go. For one thing, it's expected that most of the audience in 1965 still knew that D-Day was Jun 6, 1944. They will play with the date of that as if you know. And there was (famously) a delay due to rainy weather that shows up, too.You might even watch a D-Day classic like "The Longest Day" just to set the stage and get some broad facts, if you feel gung-ho. Or dive into this for the filming (gorgeous widescreen black and white) and acting, as well as the smart story. A great discovery.

JohnHowardReid Saddled with an over-verbose script and mollycoddlingly dreary dialogue direction, this overtly promising spy melodrama turns out to be only intermittently exciting. It could have been considerably improved by really ruthless cutting. 115 minutes is too long to sustain suspense unless something really exciting is happening on-screen all the time. Here, all the unnecessary and often phony explanations could be judiciously cut to the bone. Another problem is that Rod Taylor is definitely not a convincing German – even with a dubbed voice to help him out. What's worse is that I didn't find either James Garner or Eva Marie Saint at all charismatic. Their verbose, over-padded dialogue merely serves as an excuse for one monotonous close-up after another. In fact, although lensed for the cinema wide screen, director George Seaton seems to have placed TV sales far more firmly in his mind. I believe this picture holds the record for the number of close-ups in an anamorphic movie. Widescreen framing is only used once or twice in the entire production. The rest of the slates are simply filled out with empty background space. Fortunately, production values are otherwise up to standard, and the climactic escape has its moments of suspense and genuine excitement (plus some human relief contributed by John Banner as a practical Home Guardsman). Of the other players, only Werner Peters, who contributes an effective characterization as the chief villain, deserves mention.

Boba_Fett1138 Of some movies it's just amazing to see how unknown and under-appreciated they are. "36 Hours" should had been a classic movie by now, since it has all the right ingredients for it in it but it yet remains a fairly unknown WW II thriller, despite it's great cast and writers involved.What makes this movie so great is how incredibly and refreshing original this movie is, though in the end the movie does become a bit too formulaic. The concept of the movie is great thriller material. A couple of days before D-Day, an American major is captured by the Germans during World War II. They attempt to brainwash him into believing that years have past and the war is over and that he is safe in an Allied hospital, so that he will tell about the Allied invasion plans, involving the Normandy invasion, as if they have happened in the past time. It's a real psychological thriller, that due to its story also has a certain unpleasant and unreal science-fiction like atmosphere all over it. The movie has some great and solid thriller moments in it, that makes this movie an unforgettable one and an extremely underrated one in its genre. It's sort of too bad that in the end the movie gets overwritten, by leaving its original concept and turning into a more formulaic WW II thriller genre movie, that tries to look more clever and complicated than it in fact really is. The movie could had definitely- and perhaps also should had been 20 minutes shorter and should had ended earlier. It downgrades the movie but definitely not enough to prevent this movie from being a great and original one.The movie has a great thriller build up. featuring lots of spy elements in it. It's psychological, while the second halve turns into more physical, which is also one of the reasons why the second halve of the movie does not works as good as the first. It isn't the fastest going movie, like we're accustomed to from '60's movies. Not that it matters though. The movie is good and tense enough to keep your interest for its entire running time, without ever looking at the clock.It was a good choice that the movie was filmed entirely in atmospheric black & white. It gives the movie a more authentic feeling, as well as a unpleasant and almost alien like feeling. Luckily the movie also features some well placed and refreshing humor, to keep things light and also provide the movie with a certain entertainment-level.James Garner is good and also believable in his role. He also shares some good screen time with Rod Taylor who also gives a good performance and plays an unpredictable character. Really great in her role was Eva Marie Saint, one year before she and James Garner would team up again for "Grand Prix". She plays a great and strong female character. Really not that many actresses around in the '60's to play a role like that and do it so believable as she did. It definitely makes Eva Marie Saint one of the best actresses of her generation. Let's hope that "Superman Returns" won't be her last role. Werner Peters also plays a good stereotypical like SS-officer, who in a way is the comical note of the movie, though in the end his character turns more and more evil.A movie most definitely worth seeing, if you get the chance to.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/