THE LAST JOURNEY (1936, Bernard Vorhaus)

 

* * 

A train driver is forced into early retirement, so decides to give his final passengers a journey they will never forget.

Starring  Godfrey Tearle, Hugh Williams, Judy Gunn, Mickey Brantford 

Written by  John Soutar, H Fowler Mear, Joseph Jefferson Farjeon

Produced by  Julius Hagen

Duration  66 minutes   

 

I don't know about you, but when I look up a new movie I always check out its running time.

This information creates certain expectations, and may even influence whether I watch it or not. In my younger days, I used to be against shorter flicks, feeling they offered less value. 

But I later came to respect a quickie, especially if it was the product of judicious editing and focused storytelling. And these days, there's more reason to be cynical about long movies, such as bloated summer blockbusters and overlong superhero movies.

As far as I'm concerned, these are the kinds of movies that should have certain lengths:

– 75-90 minutes = Low budget debuts, comedies and horrors. Examples: PRIMER, FOLLOWING, THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE EVIL DEAD.

– 90-105 minutes = Still comedies and horrors, also tightly wound thrillers. Examples: ANNIE HALL, HALLOWEEN, SHALLOW GRAVE.

– 105-120 minutes = Fast-paced action movies, quirkier comedies, crowd-pleasing sci-fi, slower-burn horror. Examples: THE LAST BOY SCOUT, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, PLANET OF THE APES (1968), THE SHINING.

– 120-135 minutes = More ambitious action movies, comedy dramas, procedural thrillers. Examples: LAST ACTION HERO, SIDEWAYS, MANHUNTER.

– 135-150 minutes = True crime tales, big-idea sci-fi, decades-spanning dramas, stories with multiple strands, mind-fuck dramas. Examples: GOODFELLAS, INCEPTION, ZODIAC, TRAFFIC, MULHOLLAND DRIVE.

– 150-175 minutes = Rise-and-fall character studies, crime epics, cerebral sci-fi, war movies. Examples: SCARFACE, HEAT, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

– 175-190 minutes = Proper, bum-numbing epics. Examples: THE DEER HUNTER, DANCES WITH WOLVES, TITANIC, BRAVEHEART.

– 190 minutes plus = You gotta be kidding me! Examples: LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, BEN-HUR, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON.

But wait, here we have THE LAST JOURNEY and it's only 66 minutes. I never anticipated that.

And hey, what actually qualifies as feature-film length, anyway? Gary Oldman-starring THE FIRM (the football hooligan one from 1989) was only 70 minutes, but that was a TV movie. 

Before that, you also had David Cronenberg's early efforts STEREO (1969) and CRIMES OF THE FUTURE (from 1970, not his unrelated 2022 one), running at 65 and 63 minutes respectively. But they are labelled as 'experimental', so does that count? Plus they feel at least twice as long when you actually try to sit through them (and this is coming from a Cronenberg fan).

According to Screenwritng.io:

 

A modern feature is typically between 80 and 180 minutes long, but different groups have different minimum lengths to be considered a feature.

The Screen Actors Guild definition sets the minimum length at 80 minutes, while AFI and BFI’s definitions call any film longer than 40 minutes a feature.

The Academy also uses the 40-minute benchmark to determine if a film is a feature or a short. The Sundance Film Festival sets the line at 50 minutes.

 

Alright, I guess that's cleared that up then? Thus onto THE LAST JOURNEY.

Firing the movie up, I expected one of two things to come to pass: either it would feel like a longer film condensed and rushed, or a short film dragged out too far and therefore sluggish.

It turned out to be something else, which I'll get to presently.

Bob the train driver is retiring, but is agitated and surly. He doesn't want to retire, but his railway bosses are making him.

His wife urges him to look on the bright side: he'll get to spend more time with her! "Never mind dear," she consoles him. "This is your home."

"My home is manning an engine," Bob grumbles.

Bob's final shift is tomorrow and he tosses and turns all night, muttering to himself about not being "finished" and that someone named 'Charlie' is "a fool".

Then it's morning and we meet a load of other characters, from all round London (zooming in and out of a map to show exactly where they are, in a nice touch). A young couple, con artists escaping one grift and planning their next; another couple just signing their marriage certificate; a doctor experimenting with hypnotism, who is called away to perform an urgent operation. All mention needing to catch the train – and no prizes for guessing who will be their driver as they leave Liverpool Street Station.

It started to feel like the start of a disaster movie: meeting the ensemble cast, getting to know and care about each one before tragedy strikes. Then trying to guess who will die first and in what way. Here, I surmised, it would have to be an out of control train, like a more populated version of Tony Scott's UNSTOPPABLE, or a 1930's version of LAST PASSENGER.

Well, it turns out I was right. Although no one actually dies.

The catalyst for the disaster is Bob. It turns out that this Charlie from his nightmares is his co-driver, with whom his wife has been having an affair while Bob's been neglecting her for a life on the rails. While meanwhile, his marriage has been going off the rails. Bob's finally clocked the truth and we see that he's brought a concealed revolver on board!

That introduces a bit of tension, but then the film gets distracted by several groups of passengers, swapping between them in their various train compartments. As well as the ones we met before boarding, there's also a sozzled Yorkshireman; a carriage full of unruly children; a stuttering elderly chap; a woman handing out flyers warning against the evils of drink; and a hypochondriac old lady. Some seem to know each other already, while others are not what they first appear. Oh, and the honeymooning bride's ex is chasing after the train across the country by car, determined to warn her that her new husband is not all he seems.

Meanwhile, Bob simmers with rage and barks allegations at Charlie, pushing the train beyond regulation speed and failing to stop at Filby, Great Yarmouth altogether. When he finally gets the truth out of his former friend, Bob declares that this is going to be the last journey for everyone. But, you know, I already mentioned that no one dies, so don't worry about it too much.

Structurally, what the movie does by being about a third shorter than is standard is to condense the conventional three movie acts into two. Specifically, it skips having a second act altogether. We get plenty of build-up and introductions, but instead of a succession of twists and turns, challenges and obstacles, and character development (otherwise known as 'the middle'), all the plot strands start getting tied up all of a sudden and the movie hurtles towards its abrupt end like a ... oh, I don't know, like an out-of-control train or something?

So, THE LAST JOURNEY ends up feeling a bit underdeveloped. It's missing something important in its centre, like an Oreo without the cream. Still nice enough, but ultimately lacking the full enjoyment that you know it should be giving you.

Two stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  In a remarkably pat ending, Bob has learnt to accept that his time on the trains is over and settles down into a nice quiet retirement with the wife. With, apparently, zero consequences for his dangerous rampage.

What would a movie called THE FIRST JOURNEY be about?  Bob has worked on the trains for 40 years, so it would have to be his first day on the job, which would be back in … holy shit, 1896. Way to straddle the centuries, Bob.

 

Previously:  THE LAST CASTLE

Next time:  LAST NIGHT

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com