MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

HeadlinesExotic Boring

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

theowinthrop Oddly enough this particularly interesting story never showed up on the old American series ONE STEP BEYOND. One could see John Newland delving into it and whether it was true or not.Ms Elizabeth Morrison (Wendy Hiller) and Ms Francis Lamont (Hannah Gordon) were two proper English ladies, Oxford graduates and educators both. In August 1901 they took a vacation trip to France, and were viewing all the famous historical landmarks. This took them to the palace at Versailles on August 10, 1901. What happened depends on your acceptance that there are many unanswered phenomenon in our world. The ladies got separated from other people in their tourist party, and sat down for awhile. Suddenly they heard people speaking French, and saw men and women appear who were wearing clothing and fashions from the late 18th Century. In fact, one of the ladies appeared to be Queen Marie Antoinette. There were anxious looks on the various people, who were listening to a messenger pointing towards Paris. Gradually the oddly dressed people left the scene, and our two ladies wandered off, and found the modern dressed people again. One of the ladies would return on her own and have another similar experience. Being bookish they studied the existing material and found that they may have somehow been taken back in time to August 10, 1792, the day the Tuileries palace was sacked and the Swiss Guard massacred. They also found that the ghost of the Queen may have been seen on the grounds by others. The two ladies presented their story to various psychic societies, damaging their academic credentials. Finally they published an account of it in 1911, but the drama ends with the death of Lamont, apparently worn out by denying she was hallucinating or lying. Actually the two ladies did not die (in real life) so soon after 1911.For a short account of the story see Rupert Furneaux'a THE WORLD'S MOST INTRIGUING TRUE MYSTERIES (New York: ARC BOOKS, INC., 1969), pp. 24 - 38 "An Adventure in Time". The television film (first shown on the series "MYSTERY" in the United States) was a good one, particularly in the performances of the two leads. As mentioned in the other reviews, tricks with photography were used to suggest events going on around the ladies that could have been ghosts, or could have been due to heat prostration.

Robert J. Maxwell I've only seen this once, when it was released more than twenty years ago, but have never been able to forget it. Two English women touring Versailles witness some strange people and odd goings on but they don't discuss it with one another until their return home, when they compare notes. Their independent accounts agree on most of the important points but there are enough discrepancies to pique their interest. Some further research seems to indicate that the people and events they were witness to are long dead. One lady, wearing what is consistently called a "fichou" -- I can only imagine what that is -- may have been Marie Antoinette. The rest of the movie, about half, is taken up with their decision to publish their experiences, inviting ridicule. That's a bit sketchy but it's been a long time.I remember it for a number of reasons. One is Hannah Gordon's performance. She consistently wears a dreamy far-away look, as if not really paying attention to what others are saying, until something is said that irritates her and then she snaps back into the present with some cutting remark.Another memorable feature of the movie is the way the experience, let's call it "supernatural", is played. No spooky music. No dialog at all. The women walk in slow motion through a fuzzily photographed set that seems imbued with mystery and heat. It's extremely effective.Another reason I remember it is that it serves as -- if not exactly a wake-up call for scientists -- at least a nudge in the night. The story seems simple. Two sexually repressed ladies, disturbed by the strange surroundings and the summer heat, become pixillated and see ghosts. There was a lot of that sort of thing going about in Victorian and Edwardian England -- ghosts, fairies, seances. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was involved in it, and Harry Houdini, and Madam Blavatsky was a best seller. Well, it's understandable. The belief that God was behind everything was being challenged by Darwinism and other scientific advances, and it was natural that people should want to explore in the interface (or "warfare" as some called it) between science and religion. Nowadays we've outgrown all that superstition. Skeptics are fond of quoting the Scottish philosopher David Hume, something to the effect that if someone reports a miracle and tries to explain it by invoking an even greater miracle, he will always accept the lesser of the two miracles.Since nobody believes in miracles anymore, this dictum has a modern ring to it. But if you substitute "probability" for "miracle," it begins to look a bit less powerful. At one time, after all, it would have been a miracle for stones to fall from the skies, so every thinking person rejected the possibility. That was before the discovery of meteorites.I've been a research scientist for thirty years and have forced myself to keep an open mind, especially to events I think are silly or work in favor of my own prejudices. Another person and I once had an experience with what can only be called an unidentified flying object. It turned my conception of the world on a tilt. I've tried since then to avoid the kind of colossal arrogance that leads to thinking that our generation stands on the peak of knowledge, and that although there is more to learn about the universe, no knowledge that we already rely on can be mistaken. Baloney.There are things we don't know -- and we don't know that we don't know them. I don't know if those two ladies went through the experience they claimed. But the possibility can't be simply dismissed.

annev I'm not a big fan of paranormal stories, but this is different. Not just because Hannah Gordon manages to astonish me once again. She is absolutely brilliant in this interesting historic scenario, and next to Dame Wendy Hiller, they put together a masterpiece. The two women, as different as they are, make a very intreaging couple, given the time the story is taking place - and an interesting portrait of women a hundred years ago in britain. I just love that speech Gordon makes to the students in the end - she is indeed better than the lot of them put together - that goes for Hannah Gordon as well as the character she plays. Wendy Hiller's mimic is absolutely excellent too.

richlieu Just another marvel, featuring brilliant Hannah Gordon (see Day After The Fair) and the towering English actress, Dame Wendy Hiller, on an excursion in Versailles...and in time.