I purchased the DVD some time last year...and returned it the next day. Malcolm McDowell, as well as being a fellow northerner, is one of the finest actors of his generation and Hugh Grant, though not exactly diverse in what he does, never disappoints as the blabbering, quintessential Englishman. So why was this film so bad? In the words of Alfred Hitchcock, 'To make a successful film, you need 3 things. A good script, a good script...' you can work the rest out for yourself. I'm all for art-house films and abstraction, but we need something to feed on here, a linear thread of some kind. As the film progresses you think maybe, just maybe, it has an Ace up its sleeve. It turns out to be a Joker. The end throws up some aerial shots of beautiful Venice. Sadly, this doesn't compensate for an allegory which left the unfortunate few who've seen it forever scratching their heads.
Review of Night Train to Venice
