n_adams1 Well I understand by reading the reviews this film is not everyone's cup of tea. I however enjoyed it very much.The lovely, vivacious Jeanne Crain plays, Ruth Stanton, now Ruth Bowman after a whirlwind courtship with Carl Betz set off for Europe on a luxury passenger liner for their honeymoon.I love these old gem's which are not too long, full of thrills and mystery but at the same time, not too taxing on the brain.Quick synopsis, Mr Bowman vanishes shortly after the ship sets sail and seemingly nobody is aware of his existence. Ruth, spends most of the film helped considerably by the ship's doctor, played admirably by Michael Rennie, searching for clues to his whereabouts.Anyway without giving anything away the film reaches a very satisfactory conclusion. Great way to spend a leisurely hour or so.

vincentlynch-moonoi First off, there are two things that annoyed in this film. Jeanne Crain wore a mink coat for much of the film. Just seems odd that in a crisis she'd be running around the ship in a mink. And, she was too borderline hysterical for much of the film...although I guess in a way that played into the plot. But I prefer my screen actresses to have enough guts to pull themselves together as they work to solve their mysteries. I don't attribute either of these annoyances to Jeanne Crain (who in my view can do almost no wrong), but rather to director Joseph Newman...and perhaps to the time of the film -- 1953 -- when women were supposed to be helpless without a husband and every woman wanted a mink coat (at least they all did on "Queen For A Day"!).Aside from those two annoyances, I very much liked this film, and that it was filmed on the same sets as "Titanic" (Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck), which was made the same year.Now, in regard to the plot, if you read message boards on IMDb about this film, dismiss them. Those mentioned are almost all because the viewer either didn't pay attention to parts of the film or because they ignored certain factors. For example, one of our reviewers asked if Betz wouldn't be recognized when he claimed the estate. No...he was acting for a relative who would claim the estate! Actually, except for the two concerns I had at the beginning of my review, this film had a pretty good plot. I agree with another poster that Hitchcock could have done even more with this story...but, Hitchcock wasn't the director. Admittedly, there are a couple of places where just one or two more lines of dialog could have made things clearer.Jeanne Crain is as lovely here as ever...and just as good an actress...I just wish the director hadn't wanted her to be quite as hysterical (although that gets her locked in her cabin, which is essential to the story). I enjoyed Michael Rennie; here he is the ship's doctor. Rennie is good here...good as the good guy, although there is a moment when you suddenly think he's in on the crime. Max Showalter was a staple at 20th Century Fox at the time this film was made, but often (as here) he's simply used as a way to advance the plot, rather than getting into any character development. However, he was a dependable character actor. Despite having a key role, we see little of Carl Betz (as in "The Donna Reed Show"); he does his job as the bad-guy-husband. Mary Anderson as a stewardess was fairly good, although I kept trying to place some other role she had played in another film (but I never succeeded). Willis Bouchey, here as the ship's captain, is always a welcome presence in any film; another very capable character actor. Yvonne Peattie as Miss Bridges Though not perfect, this is darned good film noir mystery, and I recommend it for any one who likes the genre, and especially for fans of Jeanne Crain.

miriamwebster A sea-going version of Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, only it's the new husband (Carl Betz of The Donna Reed Show fame) of luxury-liner honeymooner Jeanne Crain who turns up missing. . .that, and anything resembling a satisfactory solution to what is an otherwise engaging (if extremely talky) B programmer. Intriguing lead-in immediately sets the pace for what's-really-going-on-here suspense piece but ultimately endless chatter, redundant action and a ketch of illogical red herrings run this one aground. (Film buffs may recognize one of the supporting actresses wearing Celeste Holm's jeweled-necked gown from All About Eve.) As cruise ship thrillers go, sea minus.

em89072002 I'm not sure who's worse: the people who write this rubbish, the actors who sign-up to perform it or the people who watch it and think it's great stuff.The plot is generic; it's been seen time and time again. One spouse marries the other for her or his money and then tries to do away with her or him, and the plan always backfires.Let's be clear; this is weak story where the main character gives an overly dramatic performance and the secondary characters are little more than cardboard cut-outs.This is definitely a relic in it's portrayal of men and women. The main character is portrayed as a hysterical idiot devoid of any ability to reason. Seemingly her abandonment issues fuel a desperate need to cling to any man within arms length: father, husband, doctor. This antiquated characterization of woman is absurd in today's world. Likewise, the male characters are patronizing or worse. In one scene, the woman just gets slapped across the face by the doctor; was that standard medical practice in the 1950s? After all, who needs silly medication or talkie-talk therapy when a good belt across the kisser resolves any disorder; please.