The Man on the Eiffel Tower (1949) User Reviews

Incoherent Parisian thriller from Burgess Meredith shows even veteran cast in jaundiced light

[bmacv · 5/10 · 14 December 2002]

Alarmingly shot in a process called Ansco Color (now decayed into a jaundiced sepia), The Man on the Eiffel Tower marks the first of two movies directed by Burgess Meredith. Unlike his co-star Charles Laughton, however, whose sole directorial effort Night of the Hunter showed style and assurance, Meredith lacks the rudimentary skills that would turn an actor into an auteur. Faced with a complex plot drawn from a Georges Simenon story, he failed to construct a coherent narrative skeleton; when different plot elements happen to mesh together they do so abruptly, jarringly. Instead, Meredith relies on a jumble of amateurish but flashy effects that illuminate nothing but themselves. It's a pretentious mess of a movie that should have been fun.

A rich American (Robert Hutton), torn between wife and mistress, hatches a scheme to kill off his wealthy aunt. He engages sociopath Franchot Tone to do the job, who in the process frames itinerant knife-sharpener Meredith for the murder. Hunting down the killer is Laughton as Inspector Maigret, taunted every step of the way by Tone.

The three veterans from ‘30s Hollywood had all seen better days (only Laughton would see them again). Tone looks seriously unwell (perhaps a touch of Ansco) and acts it. With a crop of carroty hair in need of harvesting, Meredith dithers around as if preoccupied with figuring out the next day's shooting schedule. And while Laughton delves deep into his larder of ham, he never fleshes out a memorable character for Maigret.

That leaves, as in Charpentier's opera Louise, the last character: The City of Paris (for so it's listed, ominously, in the credits). Like sightseers on a tour bus, we're trundled from Les Deux Magots to Place Pigalle to the erector-set edifice of the title itself. The movie's many and baffling chases – along the banks of the Seine, across rooftops, through mansions with no shortage of doors – lead nowhere but offer the glossy pleasures of a French travelogue. But the final scenes, filmed high in the dizzying geometry the Eiffel Tower, finally display some bravura. Pity they come too late, and after too much ill-directed footage, to matter.

A flawed yet hugely interesting crime thriller

[trevorwomble · 6/10 · 17 March 2016]

I found this film a real mixed bag. Firstly there is the jaunting use of colour. It has been well documented that the negative is long lost and only two 35mm film prints of varying quality are known to have survived (the DVD is made from the best elements combined from both these prints). The film print is still quite scratched and dark in places and could probably do with a proper digital restoration but at least it is watchable, if not as easy on the eye as technicolor is.

I'm not going to go into plot details as others have already done that but I did find the film starts off quite well before the plot starts to sag quite badly in the middle and gets overly complicated, although it does pick up again towards the end when Maigret's plan starts to come together leading to the action packed finale. Also, despite receiving a major credit, Wilfrid Hyde White is in the film for one scene only so its more of a cameo than anything else.

I found the dialogue to be hugely artificial at times making it sound like bad acting rather than decent actors trying to say some rather wooden lines. Yet Maigret himself is quite wonderfully acted by Charles Laughton who plays the role just right. Whereas some of the other characters seem very contrived, Maigret has a wonderful sense of humanity and believability as a middle aged, rather rotund detective who is actually smarter than he lets on. In fact Laughton's interpretation is not a million miles away from Michael Gambon's portrayal for television 40 years later. His sense of calm and intelligence, patiently waiting for his arrogant suspect to make a mistake, is reminiscent of Peter Ustinov's unruffled Hercule Poirot.

A final word should go to the production values. Shot on the streets of Paris this film is an interesting view of how post war Paris looked, showing both the beauty of the city and the damage from the war that had finished 4 years earlier. Burgess Meredith was asked to take over directing the film three days into filming and to be fair he does a decent job, keeping the camera moving when it needs to and ensuring the audience know this is not filmed on a backlot in Hollywood. The sound is also beautifully clear too, a hard job when you consider the amount of location work involved.

All in all this film falls short of being a genuine classic due to a muddled and flabby script, bad dialogue (in places) and some overacting by some of the supporting cast. However its still has a lot going for it and is well worth a watch for Laughtons performance alone.

Nearly a classic

[djensen1 · 6/10 · 23 April 2005]

This clever suspenser from the French Maigret novels is undone by first-time director Meredith. The plot revolves around the murder of a wealthy woman and her maid one dark Parisian night. A dandy living off his aunt wishes her dead in public and catches the ear of Radek, a desperate fellow who is very clever but also a bit loopy (cast Gary Oldman in the remake).

Radek engineers a fiendish scheme to implicate a simple tinker in the crime, collect his fee, and lead Inspector Maigret down the garden path. The details are delicious--if you can follow them--and the characters (the dandy, his wife, his mistress, the tinker and his wife, the inspector and his detectives, and the arrogant killer) are interesting enough for three movies. But Meredith allows the plot to get muddy and doesn't really pull the best performances out of his actors (including himself).

Radek's manipulation of the other characters is real genius (for example, he gets others to search for the murder weapon while the cops are tailing him). The Parisian setting is terrific, and the spectacular climax atop the Eiffel Tower is not to be missed, altho it's a bit contrived. The result is a decent film, but Hitchcock would have hit this one out of the park.

Note: The version I saw was from the 50 Mystery Classics DVD set. It's in color, but very faded. However, I actually found its desaturated look to be a pleasant medium between full color and black and white.

Burgess Meredith en Rouge? Sacre Bleu!!

[PolitiCom · 17 May 2004]

Dedicated film buffs will find only three elements of interest in this

otherwise disappointing production.

1. It was shot in Anscocolor, a process originally developed in Germany

designed to compete with Technicolor which it did with some success into

the 1950's. It's use here is unintentionally amusing because in the VHS

version it has been so badly degraded that rather than full color most

of the scenes appear as sepia-toned with the exception of Burgess

Meredith's hair which is an incongruous flaming red!

Anscocolor was used successfully in a number of films during this same

era such as The Student Prince, Brigadoon, Take the High Ground (with

Richard Widmark) and The Long, Long Trailer starring Lucille Ball and

Desi Arnaz.

2. The atmosphere of post-war Paris is used to good effect and is

historically interesting, but still meager compensation for a dull,

plodding narrative.

3. While Burgess Meredith is listed as the director there were actually

two others. Irving Allen, who later went on to become a noted producer, was replaced

at the insistence of Charles Laughton who then directed the scenes in

which Meredith appeared.

If you are fan of Georges Simenon's detective novels, you will also be

annoyed by Laughton's uninspired portrayal of the iconic Inspector

Maigret.....

Thriller , mystery , suspense with awesome Charles Laughton-Jules Maigret investigating the killer's identity

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 11 July 2007]

There were various production problems on this picture , including Charles Laughton's menacing to walk off the picture , as he asked leaving if the original director , Irving Allen , threatening to be replaced and Burguess Meredith then carried on the filming . The film happens in Paris , there a dandy named Bill Kirby (Robert Hutton : Invisible invader , Slime people , Vulture) wishes death his aunt , so he can get her inheritance and pay off divorce his spouse (Patricia Roc : Wicked lady , Canyon passage) and marry his lover (Jean Wallace , Cornel Wilde's wife) . A medicine ex-student named Radek (Franchot Tone , also film's producer) is hired to kill the old lady . By night , a knifes grinder , now become thief , named Heurtin (star Burgess Meredith eventually filmmaker) aware the murder but he loses his glasses and he's helped by the assassin . He's framed of killing and then escapes . Meanwhile , Radek is taunting the police and leaving fake clues and banter on Kirby's two women : the wife and lover . Inspector Maigret becomes involved into investigation and swiftly discovers the owner of the thick glasses , though there is no real evidence against him . Then , Inspector Maigret undergoes a cat and mouse game with Radek . It's a battle of wits , an obstinate detective and an intelligent villain , and winds up pitting two rivals against each other in order to destroy themselves . Meanwhile , there are developed pursuits through Paris streets , squares and on rooftops and an exciting chase on the girders of Eiffel Tower.

The film is based on Georges Simenon novel about the famous detective Inspector Maigret who is adapted on various cinematic renditions . The movie displays suspense , thriller , action , mystery and results to be quite amusing . Casting is frankly magnificent , Laughton is excellent , as always , as Maigret who is early assigned to the case and quickly tracks down the suspicious ; Tone as a maniac-depressive man is top-notch and magnificent Burguess Meredith as a knife grinder becomes involved with problems , he directed partially the film when Laughton threatened to quit if Burgess Meredith did not take over . Besides , appearing Wilfrid Hyde White as a sympathetic professor and Howard Vernon (Jesus Franco's usual actor) as an Inspector . Numerous problems during shooting , as producer Irving Allen was the original director, but after only three days of shooting , Laughton directed the scenes in which Meredith appeared .

Adapted from Georges Simenon's 1931 novel "La Tête d'un homme", his fifth to feature Inspector Maigret . It had already been filmed in France, under its original title, in 1933 . In spite of being splendidly shown streets , squares , monuments from Paris : River Sena , Eliseos Fields , Pigalle , Concorde Square and photographed by expert cameraman Stanley Cortez (Night of hunter , Magnificent Amberson , Secret beyond the door), the cinematography is lousy and faded but the film copy is worn-out , it's necessary an urgent remastering . The motion picture was rightly directed by Burguess Meredith , who replaced director Irving Allen (who was also one of the film's producer) . Allen himself was very dissatisfied with the final results . After its initial run , he bought the film rights back from RKO and kept the prints out of circulation for a long time. Many believed that the film was lost, even Meredith . However, it has been released on VHS and DVD and can be relatively easily found at rental stores . Burguess , subsequently , directed other film titled the ¨Yin and Yang of Mr. Go¨ , as well . The flick will appeal to Charles Laughton fans and intrigue lovers but contains a highly suspense story .

Laughton's role /Incredibly Mean Viewers

[Cristi_Ciopron · 7/10 · 17 July 2008]

Even dedicated Laughtonians seem to dismiss this interesting performance of the master—and why? Why?Their premise is grievously wrong. What CL does here is a Simon impression,a Simon pastiche—and a proper, adequate and of a delicious finesse lecture of the genuine Maigret …--one would consider it needless to say—yet Maigret is not Holmes, Poirot, etc.. Laughton sized this distinctiveness—and worked it in a masterly Simonian key ….Laughton's entrance in THE MAN ON THE EIFFEL … is saluted with a laugh. This is the genuine Maigret—as done by Simon ….This adaptation is primarily a Laughton recital. His performance has a genuineness not to be found elsewhere. The dismissal of his role here by so many Laughtonians is puzzling. Laughton was born to play Maigret. The Simon impression/pastiche seems rather conscientious. The droll note is deliberate. One buff consider MAIGRET Laughton's worst performance ever; on the contrary, it's one of his most perspicacious and subtly endearing, even riveting. Who loves Simenon's novels in their subtle substance ,can not but hail this marvelously tasty film. This is vintage adaptation; one must be naive, or grossly incompetent to think or, moreover, feel otherwise. Some speak as if they thought Laughton ought to play a Holmes or a Poirot here. The real, literary Maigret is as Laughton plays it. Ignorance, mere literary ignorance, dear pals, is playing a nasty trick on her victims, leading them to believe they know how should Maigret look like—well, to those folks I utter: Maigret is no Holmes, no Poirot, do not expect this kind of stuff …. Very, very good film. It is primarily a Laughton recital, and so comes highly recommended.

Three more things:--there comes a day when the _cinephile makes one of his defining experiences:when he understands that Laughton, Simon, Bogart, even Gable are better than Newman, Brando, Hopkins –this experience may take various forms, yet the essential content is as enunciated;--secondly, THE MAN ON … is a superior B movie, charming and lurid as a B movie; maybe the directing is somewhat clumsy, but the conception is definitely fine;--it is deliberately low—brow, a fine, delectable amusement, a frank B movie (as such, different from the notion of Delannoy's classicist adaptations of the Simenon mysteries …).The touches of camp of this amiable, lurid tale, colorful and highly amusing, are deliberate.

The critics of this charming, atmospheric crime thriller assume that Maigret is Holmes or Sam Spade or whoever. Well, he is not. He is someone else. Here we have Maigret as Simon would have played him.

This funny adaptation is a small B movie both more comical and more overtly dramatic than its literary source.

It's bad, but it is not a complete waste

[sol- · 4/10 · 3 July 2006]

It did not surprise me to discover after watching this film that three different persons directed it. There is no consistent vision to the film, and the narrative is poorly handled: the plot is complicated, with multiple story threads that are not coherently executed. Shot in Anscocolor, an experimental colour processing technique, the film has a strange, washed out look to it, which could be the result of film stock degrading, as everything seems to have a yellow tinge. In general, the film is quite a drag - not particularly well made, nor easy to follow - however it has a significant amount of minor virtues.

The acting in the film is quite adequate, with Charles Laughton doing the best to make his detective character charismatic: he twitches his nose, smokes a pipe, and talks in an almost monotone voice when he is dealing with a suspect. Franchot Tone comes off the best though, giving a real sense of life to his character, a mastermind criminal who is obsessed with the idea that he cannot be caught, and often raves about it to Laughton. Even Burgess Meredith has some interesting moments as an insecure, introverted man caught up in the mess somewhere.

The music, cinematography and art direction are all adequately good too. The music fits to the appropriate mood of each scene, the camera-work is interesting now and again, either following the characters around or tilting up to look at the different bits of scenery, and the scenery, the locations all fit the tale reasonably well. Set in Paris, yet with Americans involved, there is a sense that this is a foreign environment where no one really knows the rules.

It is not a completely virtue-less movie, but it is still a mess overall. There are a number of jump cuts, although with four threads of story poorly woven together, a continuity error here and there does not disrupt too much. The dialogue is rather lame and often only says the obvious, plus the style of the film is melodramatic, and it often seems overdone. A humorous touch or two, Tone's performance and okay music are pretty much all that makes it bearable.

A B (+) movie

[J. Harlan · 7/10 · 9 April 2002]

A typical post-war psychological B noir, cheaply shot, a bit bloody and very much reliant upon a dark and complicated script. But that script is notably inventive, with the intelligent and egotistical Radek leading the satellite characters around in circles. Interestingly, it's his understanding of his victims' psychology (by and large male lust and fear of emasculation) that makes them do his work for him. It's of note that Radek is explained as a manic depressive, maybe one of the earlier filmic references to the disease, which is used to put the film's psychology and imagery into perspective.

On the poster, it lists the "city of Paris" as one of the stars. With the dizzying shots of the Tower, the crisscrossing roof tops, the tall bridges, the film comes across as true to it's European roots--in fact aesthetically closer to Berlin: Symphony of a City or Man with a Movie Camera in some parts as it is to Double Indemnity. There is no typical trapped, insular and indoor psychological landscape in The Man on the Eiffel Tower, but an expansive and modern one reminiscent of the formalists.

Climbing the Eiffel Tower

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 18 December 2006]

As I started watching The Man On the Eiffel Tower it looked like it was going to go in the direction of Alfred Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train. Robert Hutton is having a sit down with his wife Patricia Roc and his mistress Jean Wallace in a Paris cafe. He gets an offer from Franchot Tone who was all ears that he'd kill Hutton's aunt who controls the family pursestrings so that Hutton could be independent.

Tone doesn't lack for chops. He not only does the deed with a maid thrown in for good measure, he manages to pin the crime on milquetoast Burgess Meredith who just happened on the scene.

Fortunately police inspector Maigret as played by Charles Laughton doesn't buy the pat scenario. He turns up Tone as a suspect, but he can't quite pin it on him. Tone's character reeks of Nietzchean superiority and France had just gotten liberated from a country that bought into that philosophy. Probably for today's audience, especially an American one, that particular dynamic can't be appreciated.

Even an escape allowed by the Paris police by Meredith blows up in Laughton's face and threatens to ruin the career of Inspector Maigret. Fortunately Laughton has a few tricks up his sleeve.

What we have in The Man On the Eiffel Tower is three very distinguished players from stage and screen who got together and made the film almost as a lark. Tone spent his entire film career trying to get out from under typecasting as a debonair gentleman in tails who usually loses the girl in the end to a bigger name. Right after this was done Franchot Tone did exactly that role in Frank Capra's Here Comes the Groom. His role here as Radek is certainly miles away from his usual parts. Tone produced this as he also produced another independent film the year before, Jigsaw, which was shot in New York.

He got friend Burgess Meredith to direct and play the stooge. The story unfortunately does sag at times until the climax chase scene on the Eiffel Tower. That whole sequence is almost like The Third Man except where Harry Lime seeks escape in the sewers of Vienna, superman Tone leads his pursuers up the Eiffel Tower. In the end though he's not quite the superman he thinks he is.

Charles Laughton made a nice Inspector Maigret. This is the second French police inspector of literature he's done. But there sure is a world of difference between Maigret and Javert of Les Miserables. In fact Laughton is far more like Sir Wilfred Robards in Witness for the Prosecution than Javert.

It's too bad that director Meredith didn't have the kind of computer generated special effects and had to rely on brave stunt men and actors to do the job. If Man on the Eiffel Tower were filmed today, I'm sure it would have been far better.

This criticism is almost a cliché, but Alfred Hitchcock could have really done something with The Man on the Eiffel Tower.

Not for the acrophobic!

[motogrrl · 7/10 · 8 August 2000]

A very, um, stimulating finale on the Eiffel Tower, reminiscent of the climax of Saboteur. The most amazing thing to me is that they certainly used the real Eiffel Tower for some of the shots, meaning really amazing and heart-stopping stuntwork. Watching Radek cross one of the cross-beams, with the city of Paris evident below and no visible means of rescue should he misstep! Yowza.

Laughton is charming and perfect as Maigret, definitely the strongest performance of the lot; makes me wish he'd made more Maigret films. Tone is wooden and not at all believable; Meredith not fully fleshed-out as a character (surprise, surprise, since he was doing dual duty as director).

Lousy Print; Disappointing Story

[ccthemovieman-1 · 3/10 · 14 October 2006]

This was disappointing because:

1 - My VHS quality was bad (perhaps I or you can find a better copy, although the cheap price on the DVD makes me believe that's a poor transfer, too.); 2 - the story was a bit confusing with Franchot Tone's role and dialog very difficult to understand in the final 30 to 40 minutes.

The ending of this film was decent and some of Charles Laughton's lines were very good. Photography-wise, this was done in some kind of experimental color, and it didn't really come off, at least on my weak VHS transfer. Some scenes looked like they were still n black-and-white and some had a sepia tone. They did have some nice shots of Paris from the Eiffel Tower.

In all, I would need to see this with a nice print to make a better evaluation of it, but the story did not impress me, regardless. With the fine cast it sported, it should have been better.

Portrait of a Sociopathic Villain

[theowinthrop · 9/10 · 30 June 2006]

It is an odd film, and the elements that made it are rather disjointed, but THE MAN ON THE EIFFEL TOWER is actually quite rewarding in the long run. When it was made in 1950 it was rare for any of the novels of Georges Simenon to appear in American or British productions. In particular the novels of Inspector Maigret. Within a few years of this film, a second rare one (THE MAN WHO WATCHED THE TRAINS GO BY) was made with Claude Rains and Herbert Lom, and it too was a good film but (like this) just did not win a large audience.

The interesting thing about Simenon's novels is that he concentrates on the characters, but he insists on making their behavior fit psychological patterns that rarely emerge in other popular detective novels up to his period of writing. Imagine Agatha Christie or Rex Stout making a novel turn on the psychological behavior of their villains. Dorothy Sayers did that occasionally (most notably in GAUDY NIGHT, where the villain hates female scholars for a deeply felt reason). But Christie's Poirot and Mrs. Marple studied clues to see what were the course of events in a murder case - they were not interested in the motivation of the killer's actions

In THE MAN ON THE EIFFEL TOWER, Franchot Tone's character dominates, although Laughton's Maigret is able to figure out how to handle him. Tone is a normal looking sociopath, who hears Robert Hutton lament his problems with gaining an inheritance that would settle his problems with his wife and mistress. Of course, Tone is aware that Hutton's position is a weak one, and he plans to do the crime but use it to blackmail Hutton for the lion share of the inheritance. The scheme does in Hutton's aunt and her servant, so that Hutton seems to be benefiting, but he is very skittish talking to Maigret and the other authorities, exciting their suspicions that he knows more than he is saying. When he is found dead they realize that he was very dangerous to the real killer.

Tone is not only willing to let Hutton look guilty (after he's squeezed money out of him for while). He is also willing to frame Burgess Meredith, who once had the temerity to be critical of Tone. He also has sadistic attitudes towards other figures who are not central to his scheme. He lures Hutton's wife (Patricia Roc) and his mistress (Jean Wallace) to the house where Hutton died, with the intentions of them meeting (they literally hate each other) so that they might kill each other off.

It is doubtful if Tone ever played such a totally dislike-able person as M. Radek. Besides his sheer violence and willingness to destroy anyone he wants for his pleasure, he is an absolute intellectual snob. But Laughton's Maigret figures out how to undercut him - you ignore his comments and ideas openly, and he becomes confused. His ego is not ready for that type of rejection, and Tone suddenly acts sluggishly and with uncertainty - as though he is on anesthesia and has not come out from under it.

In the end, Maigret shows that all the crimes Radek committed can be traced back to him. Radek knocks out the gendarme holding him, and he goes toward the Eiffel Tower, climbing higher and higher to avoid capture. And Maigret succeeds in forcing him down, when he tells him that he is not worthwhile risking their necks for. Maigret and the others leave Radek holding onto the side of the Eiffel Tower, and he suddenly realizes his danger. He follows them and is arrested.

His last moment in this film have a marvelous tag line. As he is led to the guillotine, Tone/Radek turns to Laughton/Maigret and sneers, "I bet this is one place you will not follow me to Maigret." A great conclusion to an interesting psychological study of a criminal.

Hasn't Aged Well

[boblipton · 6/10 · 5 March 2024]

Franchot Tone has murdered and framed Brugess Meredith very neatly for it. Charles Laughton knows it -- he's Maigret, after all -- but can he prove it?

I wonder how much of this movie's production was inspired by its title and the impulse to recreate the ending of The Naked City and beat White Heat to the punch. I can see Charles Laughton in the role of Maigret, and he does what he can with it, but here he's simply a fat French flic who smokes a pipe. All of Simenon's contempt for the middle class is lost in the simplicity of Tone's megalomania; if he's batty, how well can he represent the people Simenon despises? Instead, it becomes a matter of Laughton baiting Tone for the big reaction, which is unnecessary.

Still, there is some magnificent photography of Paris by cinematographer Stanley Cortez, even if the Anscocolor prints have not survived three quarters of a century in pristine condition.

Plodding detective story enlivened by some great action

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 24 July 2016]

THE MAN ON THE EIFFEL TOWER is an adaptation of one of Georges Simenon's detective novels featuring the Poirot-alike detective, Maigret. It features a headlining Charles Laughton playing Maigret himself, but oddly Laughton is the weakest part of the movie and can do nothing with the part. He just sort of wanders around and simpers without doing anything in the way of crime fighting.

The murder story is a little better, once it gets going. It sees a wealthy aunt murdered and the finger of suspicion falling on a down-on-his-luck knife grinder, played by Burgess Meredith who was old even at this early stage of his career. Meredith does his best to elude capture by the police, but Maigret suspects another man, played by the delightfully urbane Franchot Tone, is responsible.

If I'm honest, THE MAN ON THE EIFFEL TOWER isn't really up to much as a detective story. The pace is plodding, the story underdeveloped, and the characters largely unlikeable. Where it succeeds is in the visuals, which are frequently stunning. This was an early colour production that brings a teeming, bustling Paris to life and is sure to have location photography at all of the major places, bringing them to life. Even better, the film features a series of tense chase sequences which frequently use high-rise locales to their advantage. The Eiffel Tower-set climax is the best remembered of the bunch, but I preferred a rooftop chase that takes place halfway through and is like an early Parkour scene. David Belle, eat your heart out!

Somewhat disappointing

[grghull · 22 January 2006]

I'd read about this movie years ago (and nearly bought a DVD at the supermarket, but passed) so I was pleased to see it on PBS last night. It does sustain interest but ultimately isn't very satisfying. Parisian locations are very nice and lend the right touch of authenticity to Simenon's tale, but the most disappointing element is the cast. As the villain (spoiler?) Franchot Tone (who also co-produced) begins well in his quieter scenes but as his megalomania takes over he simply shouts his way through the part. Meredith plays a mousy character he's done countless times (the glasses gimmick would be used again, memorably, in a "Twilight Zone" episode). Most unfortunate is Charles Laughton, an actor I rarely find less than hugely entertaining (even in ABBOT AND COSTELLO MEET CAPTAIN KIDD) who in this film just can't seem to find a handle for his character, coming across as erratic and boring. The only actor who emerges with professional honor intact is Wilfred Hyde White, who shines briefly in a small cameo.

The climactic chase on the Eiffel Tower, however, is a vertigo inducing delight, marred only slightly by unfortunate use of a dummy. A movie worth seeing once, especially for the finale, but not more than that.

"You can help a man just so long..."

[classicsoncall · 6/10 · 3 July 2010]

Of course, Franchot Tone's character Johann Radek is a megalomaniac. How else do you explain his hanging around with Inspector Maigret (Charles Laughton) for the length of the film after he kills a wealthy American woman and then attempts to frame a street peddler (Burgess Meredith) for the crime. I didn't need this story to end to realize it wasn't making any sense. Riddle me this - why would Radek give the Inspector a hundred thousand francs? What was the point of that? Why did Huertin (Meredith) have to break a bottle over the head of Maigret's assistant, wasn't that just a bit of overkill?

There was a scene where Radek entertains Maigret with his theory that a brave man would have the courage to commit suicide from a height atop the Eiffel Tower. Well there you have the setup for a melodramatic finale, but when push comes to shove, even that plot element fizzles. And where did Huertin summon up the courage to climb the Tower himself? He couldn't get out of his own way the entire picture and here he's scampering up there behind Radek, but to do what? What do you suppose he would have done if he had caught up with him?

By the reaction of most other reviewers on this board I see I'm not alone. This might have had the seed of a good idea with it's early premise of a large inheritance intriguing enough to hatch a murder plot. But it just gets frittered away with the crime investigation led by Laughton's character. Even he seemed somewhat disappointing considering some of the more flamboyant roles I've seen him in. Maybe if this was a pirate movie.

One interesting thing though. I had to wonder if Rod Serling might have seen this film at some time before coming up with his Twilight Zone story - 'Time Enough at Last'. It too features Burgess Meredith in the lead role as a bank employee who's rendered helpless at the end of the world by an unfortunate accident. There's no way to forget that ending once you've seen it, and you'll recognize it here as soon as it happens.

"What's So Nice About Demanding A Fortune You Don't Have?"

[davidcarniglia · 6/10 · 3 June 2019]

In Paris, an American, Bill Kirby (Robert Hutton), wants his aunt dead so he can inherit her fortune, pay for his wife's divorce, and marry her friend. So he hires the job out to Radek (Franchot Tone). The hit (including on the aunt's housekeeper) comes off, but with an odd complication. A burglar saw the murderer.

That witness (Burgess Meredith as Huertin), is in the proverbial heap-of-trouble. The police, (led by Charles Laughton's Inspector Maignet) correctly figure that Huertin isn't the killer, but will lead them to the culprit, and allow him to escape from jail. A lot of cat-and-mouse stuff ensues, and, sure enough, Huertin ends up facing Radek.

Radek puts on a strange act, basically throwing himself into the Inspector's lap. That seems both arrogant and absurd; it is, but it also provides enough notoriety for the case to make blackmailing Kirby workable. Soon, however, both Kirby and Huertin show up dead, both apparent suicides. By this time, the Inspector is pretty sure that Radek in the killer, but he has no evidence.

Radek keeps stirring things up on two fronts: he pals around with the strangely indulgent Inspector, dropping hints about Kirby's girlfriend Edna (Patricia Roc) and his wife Helen (Jean Wallace); he also writes to both women. It's a pretty cunning ploy, setting them at cross-purposes. Will they tie up all the loose ends by killing each other? Or maybe just ratting on each other will do.

He brings the Inspector along to tail the two women. "Am I following you, or are you following me?" The Inspector tells him, slowly assuming the initiative. And, then, everyone shows up at the murder room, including the two (not) dead guys. (I thought that both of these 'deaths' were iffy). Superb denouement. The jig is up for Radek.

Radek splits. We end up, of course, at the Eiffel Tower. It's pretty much the epitome of film noir urban mazes--breathtaking vertigo combined with claustrophobic space. It's stunning to watch these guys clamber up the girders, fighting, suspended so far up. Amazingly, Radek doesn't fall. We hear the guillotine fall, though, which is a good horror touch. Huertin and his wife are reconciled. Hmm, but isn't he still down for the burglary?

The beginning and the end of the movie are quite good; but Eiffel Tower sags some in the long middle portion. Laughton's performance is unusually restrained. That's more or less made up for by Tone, who plays an eccentric's role very well. Otherwise, though, there's not much memorable about these characters.

I didn't think it was possible for a city, especially Paris, to look so gritty. That effect is probably enhanced somewhat by the creepy color technique. It's almost as though the city is blanketed with a layer of ash, permeated only by the dim glow of an eternal dusk. 6/10.

A Lot of Running

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 24 October 2006]

This is a really obtuse mystery film. I worried through the whole thing that Charles Laughton was going to pass out. The color is terrible (although I found it in a collection and didn't expect much). The story involves a plot to murder a woman, a frame-up, and a whole cast of characters who become involved in it. The murderer is pretty much known but Maigret (Laughton) must follow the whims of Franchot Tone as he plays with his mind. Laughton is patient and plays the game. Burgess Meredith, with blazing red hair, is the first living person victimized by the murderer and spends most of his time running away. His myopia is recreated in a "Twilight Zone" episode later, "Time Enough at Last." Where does everyone fit in? Are there really any good guys? I don't know. I do know it seemed like an eternity before the final dramatic scene (which is also a bit disappointing). It's interesting that the city of Paris is listed in the credits as one of the cast. Unfortunately, the color is so bad that this cast member really gets the short end of the stick.

crime and punishment in post-war Paris

[myriamlenys · 6/10 · 26 September 2019]

In Paris, an old lady and her maid are brutally stabbed. The actual killer shifts the blame on some poverty-stricken nitwit, who gets arrested pretty quickly. Canny police inspector Maigret realizes that the said nitwit is but doubtfully equipped to cut up soup vegetables...

I recently wrote a few reviews for Simenon adaptations, so I thought : one for the road... Now this is an interesting but very uneven movie. It often feels as though five or six people were arguing about the nature of the work : should it become a comedy, a tragedy, a mystery thriller, a police procedural, a hard-hitting exploration of the mental landscape of a sociopath ? Moreover, Charles Laughton seems woefully miscast as Maigret.

There are also a number of story strands which don't make much sense. For instance, the two women victims have been killed by an intelligent man capable of careful plotting. The murders are supposed to result from a burglary gone awry. Yet nothing in the household has been stolen - as the police easily discovers. Quoi ?! You're not going to tell me that the killer couldn't have thrown five or six objects into a burlap sack...

In fairness to "The Man on the Eiffel Tower" it needs to be added that the passage of time has not been entirely kind to some of the elements. For instance, there's a police expert, a graphologist, who looks at a random letter and spins a whole story about the origins, ideas and character traits of the author. Anno 2019 genuine experts would be far more reticent. There's another beauty where a learned medical doctor discusses a student : the student has an evil side to his nature, but then, he suffers from manic depression...

However, the movie is not without charm or interest. The many images of post-war Paris are enchanting and actor Franchot Tone gives a fine performance as a clever criminal far too clever for his own good. The climax involves some of the most spectacular stuntwork ever caught on film. Try to find a copy with good image quality - if such a copy still exists...

A directionless mess

[mdjedovic · 3/10 · 8 August 2021]

Charles Laughton plays an irascible version of Georges Simenon's Commissaire Maigret in this forgettable and forgotten American take on the immortal character. "The Man on the Eiffel Tower" is based on the same novel as Julien Duvivier's "A Man's Neck" and suffers greatly in comparison with that masterpiece of the genre. However, even without that reference, this is a dull and directionless picture that seems more fascinated by its locations than its badly told plot.

The film begins with Maigret trying to convince Joseph Heurtin (Burgess Meredith), a near-sighted, two-bit conman to tell him who killed a rich American woman and her maid. Despite being on death row for the crime, Heurtin refuses to speak and Maigret's boss is happy to leave it at that. But our indefatigable inspector is not content. He knows Heurtin is not capable of such a vicious crime and is determined to catch the true killer. To that end, a dangerous plan is executed. The police allow Heurtin to escape from prison hoping he leads them to the true killer.

And indeed he does. The real killer is Johann Radek (Franchot Tone), a ruthless and arrogant man who proves too clever to get caught by such a simple trap. But Maigret is not to be outwitted and the two men engage in a battle of nerves, following each other and setting each other traps and tests to see which one cracks under pressure first. The pawns in this game are the unfortunate Heurtin whom Radek manipulates easily and Bill Kirby (Robert Hutton), the dead woman's nephew who paid Radek to kill her.

The first of this film's many problems can be found in the character of Radek. In the original novel and Duvivier's film, he is a terminally ill medical student whose nihilism and hatred for the world come from his crippling fear of death and desire to avenge himself for what he sees as a great injustice done upon him by fate. In "The Man on the Eiffel Tower", all this complexity is stripped away and we never quite find out what Radek's motivation is. He seems to be driven by a maniacal arrogance, however, his actions in the film can't be justified by that. Not that Franchot Tone really tries to justify him one way or another. Horribly miscast and far too old for the role (Maigret refers to him as "son" even though both of the actors are around the same age), he reduces this complex and fascinating character to a scenery-chewing madman. There are no attempts in his performance at subtlety or any kind of psychology. With such an uninteresting and misconceived villain, it is hard to make any thriller plot work let alone one as character-driven as this.

Charles Laughton, on the other hand, appears to be perfectly cast as Maigret with his large frame and thoughtful manner, but throughout most of the film, he just seems bored. There's very little consistency in his performance. In one scene he sulks in the background, in another, he seems as unflappable as the Buddha while in some he is screaming and shouting at his underlings like a bad caricature of a Texan sheriff. Most of the time, though, he seems simply to be going through the motions, saying his lines and hitting his marks. There's little sign here of the charm and wit that made him so likeable in "Witness for the Prosecution" nor of the screen presence that made him so commanding in "Mutiny on the Bounty".

A lot of this film's failings can be blamed on the director, Burgess Meredith. To be fair, he jumped in to save the film after the previous director left (or was pushed), but his lack of enthusiasm is quite evident. The film has no semblance of pace or momentum. It seems to drift from one scene to another without much energy or urgency. Every scene goes on for too long as actors languidly deliver salves of badly-written text. All this is intercut by endless montages of Paris which are shot with all the inventiveness of stock footage. There are so many location shots that if you were to cut them out you'd be left with a 50-minute film.

Burgess Meredith also shows up in the film playing Heurtin, but his performance is no better than his direction. Most actors who direct themselves in films have a tendency to bloat their parts. Meredith, strangely, does the exact opposite. He barely gives himself any room to act. He rushes through all of his lines seeming distracted and uninterested. Perhaps his directing duties took a toll on his energy but this is not the Burgess Meredith we know and love. He too, like Laughton, seems to be well cast but gives a listless and wandering performance.

It seems the makers of "The Man on the Eiffel Tower" had seen the Duvivier film themselves as several scenes (not in the original novel) are directly lifted from "A Man's Neck". However, they're pale copies. Compare the almost shot-for-shot remake of the scene in which Heurtin stumbles upon the crime scene. In Duvivier's film, this was an atmospheric scene shot in an expressionistic style with long, dark shadows and the sound of heavy breathing. In Meredith's film, the scene is run through with an air of indifference. His directing can at best be described as televisual. None of the shots is interesting or has any kind of deeper meaning.

Stanley Cortez's cinematography is also distinctly workaday. The film is overlit and looks flat. I can't comment much on the colour palette being that the only copies out there are badly faded but there's no evidence that they were anything particularly interesting in the first place. Michel Michelet's grand romantic score is wildly out of place and frequently at odds with what's going on in the scene.

"The Man on the Eiffel Tower" is an unfortunate movie in that Laughton could have been an excellent Maigret were the script and the direction en par with his acting abilities. The result premiered on British television in 1949 and I think it was sub-par even there. On the big screen, it must have seemed miserable. Nowadays, it can be encountered on those cheap 50-movie pack DVD releases and that's where it belongs.

Pretty good...but could have been a whole lot better

[nomoons11 · 6/10 · 15 January 2013]

When I saw this one I was stumped because it seemed familiar. You know those films where the agitator/criminal taunts the police right in front of them and they have to figure out the clues while he sits and watches? This is one of those films. There are loads of films like this but the first I thought of was "Best Seller" with James Woods. Obviously the content is different but it's the same premise....Crook thinks he's smarter than the police and we wait for the forgone conclusion.

A super smart sociopath overhears a couple at a bar. The guy says he wishes his Aunt were dead so he could inherit her money. The sociopath hears this and leaves a letter telling him he'll do it...and he does. This guy has no moral compass whatsoever. He preys on weak minded people his old professor says and he is just way smarter and always a few steps ahead of everyone else. He enlists the help of a hapless guy to rob the place at the same time. Of course the guy doesn't know it's a setup and they nail him for the murder. From this we get the sociopath taunting police. They know he's done it but he makes them figure it out themselves. He doesn't count on the head detective being so dogged and persistent. His downfall? He's talks too much and he's too smart for his own good.

You would think with Charles Laughton in a film you would get an outstanding performance but in this...it's an average script and an average film. Laughton's talents were not wholly wasted...but mostly they were.

Franchot Tone was certainly way past his prime by this time. He looks older in this than he actually is. It's not for the films sake it's who he was. By this time a pretty heavy drinker. He reminds me a lot of Robert Taylor. All looks and no substance and in this his old 30's style of acting was far out of place in this. It's not that he did a bad job but it's that they could have found a better actor to do it. Watching this you can tell it was done on a budget so seeing him in this wasn't a surprise.

The real star of this film is the color film and landscape shots of Paris. This was filmed just a few years after WWII ended and you get to see, in color, how grimy and dingy it really was. There's a scene were Franchot Tone runs on the roofs of apartments and houses and it's just really dirty. Other shots show Paris as just not a very well kept city. Things may have changed by now but in this, it's a stark reality to see what it was like after the war.

Not a bad film but when you see this, my guess would be that you'll say I've seen something like this before. There are lots of these films premises' out there but I think this was one of the first where the criminal taunts the police in plain site. It's OK, but don't expect an A+ experience. Just wait for the shots of Paris in color and gaze at what it was like back in 1948. At least that's worth a look.

Uneven.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 6 October 2013]

"The Man on the Eiffel Tower" is in the public domain. Because of this, the film is owned by no one and it's hardly likely anyone would ever think of restoring it. It's a shame, as the color print is a mess--so faded it almost looks like it was filmed in sepia!

This film is a strange murder mystery that is investigated by the famed French detective, Inspector Maigret (Charles Laughton). It's an odd one. On one hand, they've caught a guy who was clearly in the house around the time of the murder (Burgess Meredith). However, he seems an unlikely man to have butchered the two women in the home. Instead, it is possible that the rich lady's heir might have had something to do with it. Additionally, a really loopy guy (Franchot Tone) sure acts guilty--but they have nothing on him. What's next? See the film...or don't bother.

The reason I wanted to watch the film is that I am currently in Paris and just last night went on the Eiffel Tower--so it sure seemed like an opportune moment. However, in addition to a dirty print, the film's problems often overshadowed the good. As for the good, the performance by Laughton was nice and seeing the actual streets of Paris was very nice. But, on the other hand, Tone's performance was so ridiculously over the top that it looked almost like it was meant as a comedy---but it wasn't. Plus, the finale on the Eiffel Tower SHOULD have been better but seeing Tone climb the tower faster than any marathon runner was utterly ridiculous! All in all, a film that isn't bad...it just isn't very good either.

The Man on the Eiffel Tower - Suspenseful and Entertaining!

[mcannady1 · 10/10 · 28 February 2017]

I just received a wonderful copy of this film from TCM Shop. I was expecting a problem with the color, since a copy I had received from a fellow collector had strange color - pink for the sky and green in wrong places several years ago. (However, fingers crossed, I was hoping for an improvement).

Though the film still has a disclaimer because of the ANCSCO Color problem, I was pleasantly surprised to see beautiful vivid color. Everything appears to be corrected as far as I can tell.

THe acting of Charles Laughton, Franchot Tone, and Burgess Meredith was superb. I also liked Patricia Roc, Belita, and Jean Wallace in their roles. Not only were they totally convincing, but the breathtaking views of the Eiffel Tower and gorgeous Paris scenes were quite intriguing. Every scene is vivid and interesting. It was a pleasure to see Wilfred-Hyde White as Radek's former professor who was even afraid of him!

Though the film is quite serious, there is a little humor toward the beginning when a waiter in a cafe shows Robert Hutton to the bar, where his wife and "his little blonde" are waiting.

As the basic plot of the film has been described in previous reviews, I will just briefly comment on this great film.

This Film Noir has the viewer on the edge of their chair during the cat and mouse scenes where the taunting killer leads Inspector Maigret and his assistants on a wild chase through the streets of Paris and over the rooftops. The climatic scenes are very frightening as he climbs the Eiffel Tower, with the man he had framed (Burgess Meredith) close behind him in deadly pursuit.

A highly entertaining and timeless film accompanied by very lovely music.

The Man on the Eiffel Tower

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 4 January 2023]

It's unfortunate that the "Ansco" colour film used on this 1949 adaptation of Georges Simenon's novel "A Battle of Nerves" has made much of this rather dreary crime caper feel as if you are watching it through yellow cellophane. Despite Charles Laughton being quite decent in the role of the famous detective "Maigret" trying to track down a murderer and an extortionist, the thing just bumbles along for far too long peppered with far too many protracted establishing shots and way too much score. Director and co-star Burgess Meredith has lost much of his sense of objectivity or proportion as the story pondersouly creeps to a conclusion that involves the truly insipid Franchot Tone as the caviar sandwich loving "Radek". The book is complex and detailed, this is lacklustre and almost amateur in it's presentation - and but for the considerable skill of the star, it would struggle to be anything more than a post-war Parisian tourist video. I'm glad I watched it, but couldn't say I'd recommend it to any but fans of soulless sepia cinema.

Mad Am I?

[BaronBl00d · 5/10 · 6 January 2007]

While perhaps not all that good, The Man on the Eiffel Tower is nonetheless entertaining and not nearly as bad as some have offered. Yes, the direction is less than inspiring throughout much of the picture. Burgess Meredith doesn't really seem to get a grasp on creating tension but more importantly some kind of depth for his characters. Charles Laughton, the rotund actor who I personally have never seen give a bad performance, plays the legendary Inspector Maigret from the Georges Simenon novels. I have not read them and therefore an ill-equipped to make any comparisons. I do think Laughton gave the best performance in the film even though, yes, you might say if was a bit off-kilter and subdued even for him. Meredith plays his typical milquetoast individual with workmanlike skill, and Franchot Tone gives at sometimes a very creepy, erratic, unnerving performance as the titular man of the film. The city shots of Paris, though my copy had a somewhat grainy color quality, were impressive and the denouement at the Eiffel Tower easily was the film's most noteworthy attribute. This film was just engaging enough to interest me and it is populated with an above-average cast.