Watch The Man in Grey For Free

People are voting emotionally.

best movie i've ever seen.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

A film which has a lot to answer for, since it started both a trend for Gothic romantic melodramas in British cinema which proved ideal escapist fare for a country at war, as well as starting off various star careers (notably James Mason and Stewart Granger). The former, in particular, cornered the market for a while in brooding anti-heroes whose sadistic streak women seemed to find perversely attractive; incidentally, his part here was smaller than I had anticipated – since the protagonists were really the two ladies who suffered at his hands i.e. Margaret Lockwood and Phyllis Calvert (both of whom would likewise become fixtures in this type of film). Still, this being the prototype, its makers utilized modern-day book-ends – with the conveniently look-alike descendants of the 'good' couple, Calvert and Granger, having better luck coming together – as a safety-pin (not to mention adopting such anachronistic devices as having Calvert's "nigger" servant-boy played by a white child in black-face!). With this in mind, the film is somewhat halting as entertainment when viewed today, but it nevertheless yields pictorial felicities aplenty (courtesy of cinematographer Arthur Crabtree, who would almost immediately graduate to director and dabble in the costume genre for himself), as well as considerable interest throughout. For the record, the latter arrives by way of the occasional powerful scene (Mason and Granger's night-time scuffle in a public garden, Lockwood's come-uppance at the hands of the doting but honor-bound Mason) or humorous incident (a stock-company performance of Shakespeare's "Othello" in which Granger and Lockwood discuss attending aristocrat Calvert, a mutual acquaintance, during the all-important murder scene of Desdemona). Among the film's more notable (and commercially successful) follow-ups, then, were FANNY BY GASLIGHT (1944; which re-united Mason, Calvert and Granger) and THE WICKED LADY (1945; again directed by Arliss and featuring both Lockwood and Mason).JAMES MASON: THE STAR THEY LOVED TO HATE (TV) (Mike Healey, 1984) **1/2 This adequate, if hardly comprehensive, look at one of the most revered actors of the 20th century (one I greatly admire myself) probably amounted to his last ever interview – since the versatile British thespian would die before the program had even aired! With a career spanning some 50 years, it necessarily skimps over score of titles (even some very good ones) and, given the title, tends towards discussion of his sinister roles (which is actually how he rose to stardom: see my review of THE MAN IN GREY [1943] elsewhere and on whose R2 DVD this documentary was included, albeit in abridged form) rather than being a broad overview of his entire body of work – though, curiously enough, there is no mention at all of Alfred Hitchcock's NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) in which the actor did play villainous and is possibly the best film he was ever associated with! Mason, graceful as ever, is quite candid in his recollections – from the peculiar circumstances surrounding his first marriage (actress/writer Pamela Kellino would leave her cinematographer/director husband Roy for him, yet the three would form a lasting if not very successful film-making alliance!), his famous criticism of the British movie industry in a series of articles (what was seen as career suicide at a time when it had basically peaked did lead to a move to Hollywood, though his beginnings there were inauspicious) and when it came to choosing the three pictures he was least fond of, namely LADY POSSESSED (1952; one of the Kellino collaborations), FOREVER DARLING (1956; in which he appeared as an angel alongside Lucille Ball) and KILL! (1971; Romain Gary's bizarre thriller about drug-smuggling). In direct counterpoint, then, the two roles he had singled out over the years as his favorites – ODD MAN OUT (1947) and LOLITA (1962) – are likewise given their due. All in all, a nice record of one of filmdom's most compelling and intelligent presences in rare self-appraisal mode.

The first official "Gainsborough Gothic" bodice-ripper was a smash hit for WW2 weary audiences in Britain, making instant stars out of James Mason, Stewart Granger, Phyllis Calvert and Margaret Lockwood. Audiences went back to the cinema time and time again to see the diabolical exploits of the nasty and sexy Mason, the cruel and calculating Lockwood and the doomed lovers Granger and Mason. The Regency-era setting is cleverly contained in a flashback from a WW2 black-out. Lovely, fair-headed and popular Clarissa Richmond (Calvert) befriends a poor pupil at her school, the raven-haired and almost humourless Hesther(Lockwood). Big mistake! In the years to come Clarissa has married the dastardly Lord Rohan (Mason), who only wants her as a broodmare. Things are looking up when she comes across Hesther again, and meets the dashing Rokeby (Granger). But then Hesther has her eye on Lord Rohan...So, how does this melodrama with a rather hokey plot (though it's very much "Vanity Fair" spun-off) hold up today? Not bad, not bad at all, if you can forgive the creakiness and chunks of awful dialogue. The four stars all create such believable persona's that they were all pretty much typecast forever. Interesting that Lockwood only really played three "wicked" women in her career, but she's forever immortalised by this and her subsequent "The Wicked Lady". While Mason, Granger and Lockwood stick out firm in the memory, Calvert is really the glue that holds it all together though. Her Clarissa is almost so sugary to induce diabetes, but Calvert makes her believable and sympathetic.

You can regard this movie as an '40's chick flick that has a story of a typical romantic-dramatic novel, women love to read. It has all of the ingredients you could expect, like true love, friendship and rivalry. It has not just a triangular love story but its even more complicated than that. It's all well constructed though but this nevertheless doesn't mean I can regard this movie as being something different than a chick flick.The story truly saved this movie for me, or else it would had been a real dreadful one to watch. It has all of the typical clichés women seem to care about but as a man it just isn't all as compelling to watch. The story is solid and keeps you interested throughout. The love stories are original since it doesn't always picks the easiest road to walk on. Marriage and friendships turn bitter and characters are changing throughout. I like movies in which its characters are slowly but steadily changing into someone different.It also is of course thanks to the acting that this all works out so well, even though the dialog and directing style are all extremely old fashioned. But oh well, this is of course consistent and normal for the genre. In the '40's director Leslie Arliss made several movies like this one, often with the same actors involved, without ever gaining real fame for it really. Women will surely appreciate this movie even better than I did already.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

One line of dialogue stood out for me and actually made the film; Lockwood and Calvert are travelling by coach to Calvert's London home and she asks Lockwood (who has just played Desdemona to Granger's Othello) how long Granger has been an actor. 'As far as I'm concerned he never was' replies Lockwood, a brilliant summation of Granger's talent, the lack of which, of course, failed to prevent him achieving film stardom. This Regency meller stands up remarkably well and if Mason and Lockwood are slightly over the top, Calvert a tad TOO twee, as if auditioning for any parts Olivia de Havilland might reject, and Granger too inept probably at the time - and wartime at that - they were all quite acceptable. Certainly worth a look.