LeonLouisRicci Plodding and virtually plot less this mundane Movie is a static presentation that tries very little to be exciting. It's a lethargic little Film exploiting the bomb in Britain anxiety that the People there surely didn't need any reminder to bring back those nightmares of just a few years back.It is not bad, just runs out of steam almost immediately. Once the bomb "expert" climbs aboard the Train things really screech to a halt. The Wifely back story seems oddly coupled here and is about as dull as their Marriage. The most interesting thing is the Saboteur and the hunt for Him and his motivation are non-existent. There is a bit of Comedy relief featuring a codger, "I like Trains". That line is repeated ad nauseum and is somewhat condescending. It doesn't liven things up. Overall, this is not a complete failure and has some rather good Cinematography. The locations are damp and dismal and that describes this completely.

davidesteiner It's very interesting that the average of (at this writing) 241 votes is 6 out of ten. But there are almost no 6 ratings. People seem to either like it very much or hate it.I first saw this in a theater in 1953 and I thought it well done, suspenseful and entertaining. Tetzlaff and Ford made me believe in the life or death aspect of the script, and in retrospect the film in black and white added to the atmosphere. I have since seen it once or twice on television and it's now a period piece about things that no longer exist, but the suspense and terrorism themes are as topical as ever; we read about defusing bombs almost every day and we wait for news of the next IED's death toll.If one looks beyond the period trappings, the fundamental qualities of life, survival and ultimately death are examined and exemplified with some care. Given a suspension of disbelief, this movie can be both entertaining and illuminating. I suspect viewers will continue to either like it very much or dislike it very much. That diversity should make those who've not seen it curious.

edwagreen A real blow-up of the film literally. This British film is boringly made.What an exciting plot! A terrorist places bombs on a train. How could the writers and producers of this stinker turn this into such a dull story?Glenn Ford, as the expert called upon to defuse the bomb, is given awful writing material to work with. Naturally, just as he is called in, his wife, Anne Vernon, is about to leave him. No wonder we never heard of Miss Vernon. After such a film, it would be enough to end her career.That elderly man who loved trains and interferes is our 1953 version of senile dementia. I thought it was highly insulting to show this man, even at the end.

ashew This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc.