36 Hours (1964)

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

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.

a war film. not an ordinary one. because, more than a story, it is a form of embroidery. it is something who makes it different and that fact is the key for discover a movie who has the cast, the music and the script as impressive pillars not only for artistic value but for force of message. a film about sacrifices, touching and precise, out of ordinaries temptations of genre and seductive for a kind of beauty who has as source the art to choose the right actors. adventure, love, tension and honor , vulnerability and force are ingredients of it and that could not be a surprise. but the doses and the art of use is wise and that detail transforms one of so many war movies in a certainly must see it.

What is most remarkable about "36 Hours" is the year it was made: 1965. With the third and best Bond movie having been released in 1964, Hollywood and England were in the midst of 1,001 iterations of the secret agent theme. To the modern viewer, this appears a knock off of "The Prisoner," but actually that was first broadcast in 1967. One poster says McGoohan outlined the concept in 1965, which still raises the possibility that "36 Hours" was a direct inspiration. However, there were hints of what was to come in his Danger Man/Secret Agent series. And some say "The Prisoner" was based on a real spy village. Some might say "36 Hours" is an homage to Hitchcock. The concept certainly is, and there is a reason: Roadl Dahl also wrote several of the best "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" television episodes. The early scenes, where there a so many gray, little people who are actually spies is true to the Hitchcock paranoia, as is the sense of atmosphere. However, the directorial style is not Hitchcock, and one must wonder what the movie would have looked like in his hands. I think the pace would have felt more taut, with more buildup of suspense. Another factor is the music. Look at the Portugal scenes - they look like Hitch, but the music by Dimitri Tiomkin is far too light for suspense. There was very little music later in the movie to set the mood. Bernard Herrmann would have given it more of a Hitch feel. So, I think they were trying not to imitate Hitch -- perhaps too hard. Some complain that it is too slow, and, indeed, at points the movie does feel like it is 36 hours. But I strongly feel we have become an ADHD nation of short attention span due to modern editing. The slower pace gives you time to absorb the details and atmosphere, which is as much of the story as the explanatory dialogue. And you don't feel like a limp rag when it is over. There are elements that echo Hitch's "North By Northwest," which co- starred Eva Marie Saint, a very pretty face with nothing to prove. Here, she gets to act a very different persona, and she creates a convincing younger version of Marlene Dietrich, with just a touch of German accent. They don't come more handsome than James Garner, but he, too, gets a chance to prove his acting chops. Rod Taylor also was in a Hitch classic: "The Birds," and gives a convincing performance here, one of his best. So there is some great acting to be seen."36 Hours" is about a Great Con, much like "The Sting" 1973, and the earlier "Went the Day Well?" 1942, which also entailed Germans speaking perfect English. Actually, there was much about D-Day that was a Great Con, much of which has only come out more recently. Lots of clues "accidentally" fell into German hands, including a corpse of a courier, the part-brainchild of Ian Fleming (who also hatched a scheme that sounds a bit like "U-571.") There were lots of real cons going on on the Allied side, so in that light, it is not so improbable that the Germans would try one of their own, if they had had the imagination. It takes a while for the plot to thicken, say, about half the movie. The details eventually come together nicely, the hallmark of Roald Dahl. The clicking heels was a nice touch as a giveaway. The Germans now face the problem of whom and which version to believe, and the fall back to believing the Pas de Calais option is executed believably. Here, we see hints of the tricks that were played, historically. The movie seems to stay true to the era.With all the attention to detail, there was one oddity: the coffee, which was served in a French press without any plunger. You cannot make coffee, then remove the plunger, or you will pour grounds into your cup. So this coffee was made, then put in the carafe. Was this a goof, or was it a clue something was wrong with the coffee?Spoiler alert:There was.

Very good film with Jim Garner, Eva Marie Saint and Rod Taylor in basically a cat and mouse game.Garner is captured by the Nazis and is made to believe that he is an amnesia victim who has had his memory restored in the year 1950.The movie does lose some of it potency once Garner discovers the ruse.The film then becomes one of the Nazis not believing Garner when he had send that the allied invasion would occur at Normandy. Ms. Marie-Saint plays a nurse, who had been released from a concentration camp so that she could participate in the duping of Garner. She is very good in the part as she evokes the facade of a concentration camp survivor.Also excellent is Rod Taylor as the German doctor, American born, he went to live in Germany at age 16. You do wonder though why he ever fell in with the Nazi movement.