MartinHafer The plot to "Journey Into Fear" is not a complicated one...but it seems to make the most of it. When the story begins, Howard Graham (Joseph Cotten) is in Istanbul on business and anticipates leaving the country in the morning. However, a simple night out with a man who also works for Graham's company turns into a murder...and the intended victim appears to have been Graham but as luck has it he was spared. But the local secret police chief (Orson Welles) insists that to protect Graham he'll send him out of the country by slow boat instead of the train in order to avoid Nazi agents. Unfortunately, the Nazi agents anticipated this and soon Graham finds himself aboard a boat filled with murderers. Can he possibly survive?The story is rather simple but with a rousing ending and nice camera work it makes the absolute most of what it's got. Well worth seeing and a nice example of simplicity making for a nice picture.

Leofwine_draca A fun noir thriller, teaming Joseph Cotten (SHADOW OF A DOUBT) and Orson Welles (CITIZEN KANE). An arms dealer in Turkey finds himself the subject of an assassination plot by Nazi agents who are determined to stop him helping the alliance. The story begins proper during a magic show when a magician is accidentally shot; the intended victim (Cotten) must then flee on a ship back to America, but all on board may not have kindly intents towards him.Oddly, the film this most reminded me of is the fun Sherlock Holmes story PURSUIT TO ALGIERS, which has a very similar storyline. In any case, JOURNEY INTO FEAR is a fun film to watch for the visuals, featuring plenty of moody black-and-white photography and menacing shadows from which an assassin could spring at any moment. The story picks up when the setting moves to the ship, the director making the best of the claustrophobic confines.Cotten has always been a reliable star and that's no different here. Welles himself plays the larger-than-life supporting role of a Turkish ally, while the villains pitted against the pair are a lot of fun. The high rise climax is a hoot.

LeonLouisRicci Everything Orson Welles endeavored after Citizen Kane has at least some controversial or intriguing behind the scenes skulduggery. This one is certainly no exception. Film Historians, to this day, discuss just how much he was involved Directing, Writing, and Editing this Foster Child. Like so much of his Art there is an infallible indication of his presence on screen. To keep it simple, the tone of the Movie. The look, feel, and ambiance that was unmistakable Welles.This one has all that and shows signs of outside tampering but it is nonetheless a better than average little Noirish Espionage Thriller that has an appeal of snidely foreigners in dark and wet locales that give this little story of an Inventor/Bureaucrat caught in the muck of undercover uneasiness and life threatening fear. It is that journey that our everyman Hero must wiggle, sidestep, and use his wits to stay alive.This is richly atmospheric, and the beginning and closing scenes make this worth more than most. There is some effort involved to keep a handle on things as they do get muddled, but it is all a lot of sinister fun and the Talent involved couldn't help but pull off a rather entertaining, if minor, Gem. This reminds one of Underground Art, apart from the Mainstream and just below the surface of the regular stuff.

writers_reign Considering the turmoil in the aftermath of Kane one could suppose that we're lucky to have even a truncated second/third film from old Awesome. It was, of course, always going to be a problem following Kane even if everything was running smoothly, as it was, Welles was here, there, and everywhere initially trying to decide on a project, then leaving a second masterpiece in the hands of the abattoir known as RKO whilst off in Rio on an aborted project and somewhere in the middle of all this deciding on an Eric Ambler novel - all his life Welles was a sucker for espionage thrillers - rounding up his Mercury players, assigning Jo Cotton - who had never written anything more ambitious than a Christmas card - to adapt the novel, playing only his second ever acting role on screen, albeit a brief one, coming up with another collection of 'signature' shots and handing the directing credit to Norman Foster. Okay, it's less than perfect - in one sense it resembles a blueprint for Mr. Arkadin - but even imperfect Welles is light years better than, for example, overrated 'pure' Hitchcock. If ultimately disappointing it is at the same time fascinating.