I ended up degrading this film severely and, unbelievably, I think it's Glenn Ford's fault! He and his wife, Anne Vernon, and the film's director (Ted Tetzlaff) who let their performances set such an unrealistic tone in the middle of so many other realistic moments.
TERROR has so many elements that I traditionally enjoy: it's a police procedural film, where we follow along the footsteps of several law enforcement types when a policeman has a fight with a late-night railway vagrant, who escapes. But after picking up some of the vagrant's debris, the policeman realizes the pieces could be bomb-making material. Was that a vagrant, or a saboteur?
When the small constabulary discovers the train is loaded with mines, this sets off the quick action of the rest of the authorities.
Glenn Ford and his French wife are intro'd to us as she's in a screaming tantrum against him and 'this life of boredom'. She's making too childish of arguments to gain sympathy but thru this tirade, Glenn Ford is smirking at her, insisting she "calm down" while he leaves her for a cup of coffee. And for the rest of the film, his oblivious behavior towards her or towards the concept of "wife" or "life partner" or even "friend" is SO bizarre. We see more realism when Weathermen stand in front of Green Screens, pointing out cloud patterns and swirling winds.
There are many, many good scenes but, following each one, the Director gives us some Idiot Character (Glenn smirking at his wife, his wife being childish, or an Idiot Savant who slips off evacuation cars, thru police cordons, always to pop up on this explosives-filled train to wreak havoc). "Let's just shoot him and move on with the suspense, eh?"
These weak moments are so incongruous to the film's good scenes, and it makes them more stark and upsetting to the tone.
If there's one good point to be gained from the film, it's that I can now say, "I've finally seen a bad Glenn Ford performance in a police or crime drama!"
I mean - everyone deserves one, right?
Terror On A Train (aka Time Bomb) 1953
-
MissGoddess
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
- Contact:
Lol! I enjoyed your post, Ollie. Actually I stuck with it because of Glenn Ford and for the novelty of a movie that managed to credit ordinary policemen (not detectives) with brains of their own. However I think you are totally right about the absurd wife. I figure that they only put her in because all the people in the area surrounding the bomb-train were evacuated and they needed a potential "victim" to worry about. The evacuation really deflated all the tension for me. We could have been made to get all wrapped up in concern over Glenn Ford getting blown to smitherines, but clearly we were not.
I blame the weaknesses on the plot structure and the director. Still it was an interesting "curiosity".
I blame the weaknesses on the plot structure and the director. Still it was an interesting "curiosity".
MissG, I've spent a couple of days mulling the film over and one other reason for my low rating on this film: all the weak scenes and actor performances were obvious and clear at the moment. Chopping them out (like the old man) or getting the wife to complain about REAL issues ("You never show you care for me - not even now!") seem to easy. A different line of dialog or two would fix a lot, and tell Glenn, "Wipe the smirk off your face, look angry, and don't leave for coffee."
Yes, having the wife show up as if her appearance suddenly re-inserts tension is SUCH a lame tactic.
What wife of a bomb-disposal expert would head to the scene and run into his arms as he's screaming at her? Why didn't she stop off, get a hand grenade, pull the pin and toss it to him instead?
That seems JUST as reasonable as her last set of scene-instructions.
These poor scripts doom an otherwise interesting film. The policeman changing into plain clothes, sporting the beat-up face and capturing the bad guy. Great great scene, well done with good patience as we wait and wait. How can the director realize how to do those good scenes and then go brain-dead for a few others?
Literally, they could have chopped the wife out of the tale completely and solved two-thirds of the film's problems: the wife's lame dialog and actions, and Glenn's smirking reactions to her.
Then, snip out those 3 old-man scenesl and, whoosh, we have a solid film.
This sounds like a job for SuperVideoEditingMan!
Yes, having the wife show up as if her appearance suddenly re-inserts tension is SUCH a lame tactic.
What wife of a bomb-disposal expert would head to the scene and run into his arms as he's screaming at her? Why didn't she stop off, get a hand grenade, pull the pin and toss it to him instead?
That seems JUST as reasonable as her last set of scene-instructions.
These poor scripts doom an otherwise interesting film. The policeman changing into plain clothes, sporting the beat-up face and capturing the bad guy. Great great scene, well done with good patience as we wait and wait. How can the director realize how to do those good scenes and then go brain-dead for a few others?
Literally, they could have chopped the wife out of the tale completely and solved two-thirds of the film's problems: the wife's lame dialog and actions, and Glenn's smirking reactions to her.
Then, snip out those 3 old-man scenesl and, whoosh, we have a solid film.
This sounds like a job for SuperVideoEditingMan!
I am a Glenn Ford fan, but this one just didn't do it for me. I saw this movie a while ago on TV, but for some reason never saw the end, so I sat down ready to watch it this time and see what happened. Unfortunately, I still haven't seen the end because it just didn't hold my 'suspense monitor' very high. In the first place, knowing what her husband did, how long did it take the wife to figure out the 'single hero guy' out there was her husband? I watched it through her coffee drinking, during which she learned all the facts and still didn't guess the truth when she told the policeman she wasn't sure where she was going, so at that point she still hadn't figured it out, she just happened to go home by default.
Ollie, you're right about Charlie, how did he get through the police lines?
Unless it's someone or something I can't stand, I can usually watch a movie all the way through, especially a thriller like this one, but Ollie is right, there were so many stupid things happening, that suspense was deflated to a point of disinterest.
Anne
Ollie, you're right about Charlie, how did he get through the police lines?
Unless it's someone or something I can't stand, I can usually watch a movie all the way through, especially a thriller like this one, but Ollie is right, there were so many stupid things happening, that suspense was deflated to a point of disinterest.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
JohnM, we're about 180-degrees on our views of these two films. I felt the relatively few (and really, as I said, 3) problems with TERROR ON TRAIN made me degrade the film, whereas the same critical eye and judgment towards JOHNNY EAGER has me brushing aside its problems.
Maybe it's the supporting casts - I thought Lana Turner offers a better performance than poor Ann Vernon's. And we're given far more reasons to see Edward Arnold's hatefulness than TERROR's train bomber.
I suspect my biggest problem is that, while TERROR starts strong, it's derailed because of Glenn Ford's first scenes - a poorly-scripted and delivered husband-wife argument. EAGER, on the other hand, doesn't give me any substantial mood degradations.
These are two interesting films to compare just on their subjective-to-individual levels.
JohnM, will you watch TERROR ON A TRAIN again? I've watched it one more time and am likely to watch it again, just because I'm a Glenn Ford fan.
Maybe it's the supporting casts - I thought Lana Turner offers a better performance than poor Ann Vernon's. And we're given far more reasons to see Edward Arnold's hatefulness than TERROR's train bomber.
I suspect my biggest problem is that, while TERROR starts strong, it's derailed because of Glenn Ford's first scenes - a poorly-scripted and delivered husband-wife argument. EAGER, on the other hand, doesn't give me any substantial mood degradations.
These are two interesting films to compare just on their subjective-to-individual levels.
JohnM, will you watch TERROR ON A TRAIN again? I've watched it one more time and am likely to watch it again, just because I'm a Glenn Ford fan.
I echo JohnM's comments on seeing this - or any film. TERROR ON A TRAIN is a 72-minute film and I'm degrading it based on, oh, 8 minutes of it? 6? Probably less than 10 minutes, total. There is a slow point in the film (as the wife wanders around, waiting for her train to depart) but even those are filled rather nicely.
In watching the film again, I anticipated being more critical of those slow moments (less-than-average films and their slow moments can be reduced to "bad" in my memory), but actually, those slow moments were handled fairly well and kept my attention. For some reason, the wife does well when the script-writers don't invent arguments!
I'd say this is a definite film for Glenn Ford fans if, for no other reason, than to see one of his weaker efforts.
Also, dissecting my likes and dislikes here, in print, in no way should be construed as a recommendation. It's more a study of how the film affects me, and any debates or arguments - I hope! - are intended to create re-considered moments.
JohnM brought up TCM's next film and, like him, I watched them together. They have little reason for comparison outside of that time-frame, except that it's interesting to know my poor ratings for TERROR can be exactly opposite for a different film and a different cast, like EAGER was.
Try as a I might, pinning down the factors that influence me subjectively has always been rather hopeless. But fun.
In watching the film again, I anticipated being more critical of those slow moments (less-than-average films and their slow moments can be reduced to "bad" in my memory), but actually, those slow moments were handled fairly well and kept my attention. For some reason, the wife does well when the script-writers don't invent arguments!
I'd say this is a definite film for Glenn Ford fans if, for no other reason, than to see one of his weaker efforts.
Also, dissecting my likes and dislikes here, in print, in no way should be construed as a recommendation. It's more a study of how the film affects me, and any debates or arguments - I hope! - are intended to create re-considered moments.
JohnM brought up TCM's next film and, like him, I watched them together. They have little reason for comparison outside of that time-frame, except that it's interesting to know my poor ratings for TERROR can be exactly opposite for a different film and a different cast, like EAGER was.
Try as a I might, pinning down the factors that influence me subjectively has always been rather hopeless. But fun.
Well, I've always enjoyed watching it for what it is. True it wasn't one of Ford's best films, but if you take it just as a "B" movie with pretty good production values it's better than a lot of them. I don't know how it ran in the UK, but it certainly must have been the bottom half of double-bills in a lot of theatres over here. I would be courious to know how he ended up in the film. There has to be a story to that.
I like how it was shot in a real town instead of a backlot street and had hundreds of extras who most likely were local folks, in the evacuation scenes. I've always thought the the British do a very good job making inexpensive films without giving them a "cheap" look.
I like how it was shot in a real town instead of a backlot street and had hundreds of extras who most likely were local folks, in the evacuation scenes. I've always thought the the British do a very good job making inexpensive films without giving them a "cheap" look.
Mark, that's another excellent point - the realism was of the film results from it being film in real places with so many real people. The train stations, the cafes, streets - "only the actors aren't real". Or in this case, a few scenes by writers and a director that let them slide.
Your addition of the 'realism achieved' is a great point for this film.
Your addition of the 'realism achieved' is a great point for this film.