User Reviews

Altho this film came from MGM, it is nothing more than a B quality Warners film. The plot is implausible and absurd, especially in the scenes where we're asked to believe Montgomery's character suddenly steps in as CEO of a major industry his family owns and is allowed to continue until he alienates the workers to the point of rebellion. Utter rot! And the suicide plan Montgomery devises for himself is just movie nonsense, as is the chase to Paris to find the bookbinder who has Montgomery's diary. The best laugh here is Oscar Homolka as Dr. Rameau, the psychiatrist. He looks like an ape-man. Everyone involved with this film should be ashamed. It's a waste of one's time to watch it.

In her autobiography, Ingrid Bergman explains that Robt. Montgomery came to her before shooting on "Rage" began and said, "I'm very sorry to do this to you, but I'm forced to do this movie, so I intend to just say the lines but not act.... I'm not going to do what they tell me to do. I'll listen, but I shan't take any notice."

He explained to Bergman that he had pleaded with MGM to have some time off from making films, but MGM put him right in to "Rage." Montgomery couldn't afford suspension because he had a family and a large house to maintain. Montgomery explained to both Bergman and George Sanders that his revenge on MGM would be to take no direction and deliver all his lines flatly.

Bergman writes, "The director would explain what he wanted to Bob, and Bob would look up at the sky as if he wasn't hearing a word, and the director would say, 'Now, Bob, have you understood what I'm talking about?' Bob would answer, 'Now are we going to shoot this scene? Right; let's go." And Bob would go straight into this blah-blah-blah act of his, no inflections, nothing, same speed, same pace."

Bergman said, "George Sanders was fed up with the whole thing and most of the time he slept. He would come out from his dressing room yawning, do his little bit, and go back to sleep again. He couldn't care less about it; just another bad movie."

Bergman, new to Hollywood, tried her best, tho she disliked director Van Dyke and tried to get Selznick to have Van Dyke replaced or have herself taken off the film. Selznick would do neither. So Bergman confronted Van Dyke, who was surprised when she told him her complaints. He said, "Oh! All right. I don't know how, but I will try and change."

In his review of this film in The New York Times, Bosley Crowther did an extraordinary thing for the time by including a final paragraph in his review which read, "It has been reported from Hollywood that Mr. Montgomery was compelled to play this role as 'discipline' for some things he said in public about motion pictures. That may be an explanation for the general obtuseness of the film...."

On the set, on the screen, "Rage in Heaven" was a bad experience.

First, the cast:

Robert Montgomery - one of my all-time favorites, does a serviceable job here, although at times, he plays it too flat. This psycho character is very different from the one he played in Night Must Fall (see that film instead), yet at first, he downplays it too much, even when he is supposed to be upset or angry. As the film goes on, his performance gets much better (he pulls off the paranoia and obsession with ease). Montgomery looks a little tired and haggard, but this befits the character, and he works well with both Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders. Montgomery is always interesting to watch, whatever the role, due to his very nuanced performances. Pay particular attention to the way he moves his eyes to convey so much. His role as Philip in Rage in Heaven is no exception.

Ingrid Bergman - wow, is she great! Bergman is a very natural actress who rarely puts a foot wrong. Unfortunately, this role is kind of a waste for her, because it mostly consists of reacting to the two male leads. Despite this, every emotion is played to perfection, and her beauty in this film is outstanding. To me, she got a little masculine looking as time went on, but I adore her looks here - it is very easy to see why the men, Philip and Ward, fell in love with her character Stella. To be punny, it is a Stellar performance. Simply but, Bergman is like a breath of fresh air.

George Sanders - this is one of the earlier films of his that I have seen. God, he was handsome! I love his voice, too. It was nice to see him in a decent-guy role for a change. I like the fact that both he and Montgomery were playing against type in this movie. He is another actor that never ever gives a bad performance.

Plot problems:

Too sketchy in some areas, and WAY too `convenient' in others. The ending was particularly guilty of contrivance. A previous reviewer claims that the ending negates the rest of the film - this is not so, but it certainly does it no favors, either. Another problem - WHY was Philip SO SO SO obsessed with and jealous of Ward Andrews (Sanders' character)? The extent of this was not really explained. Also, the `mob scene' was laughable. A three year old would not fear this group!! Oscar Homolka as the doctor might as well have been wearing a clown suit - a farcial, downright silly performance that the director should have reigned in not a little bit - although his scene in the bookstore was very cute.

Bottom line: watch it for the acting, but check your faith in a coherent plot-line at the door.

p.s.: CATS, beware: Bob Montgomery abuses YET ANOTHER feline in this film!!!!!

This is one of the opening title screens at the beginning of the movie. I think, hmmm - this should be an interesting movie. But it didn't measure quite up to my expectations, especially given the status of the 3 main leads (though Ingrid was still a few years away from super-stardom, thanks to Casablanca).

My biggest problem is that I just didn't buy Robert Montgomery's portrayal of psychosis in the form of paranoia. He just comes across as a bad actor giving a wooden performance. I do get the fact that, per the opening segment with the Psychiatrist statement, "his monotone voice and lack of emotion is a classic symptom of paranoia". But he could've really added a greater depth to his illness than just looking stiff and emotionless.

Bergman is so radiant and beautiful as always. She is so believable as the dutiful, loyal wife - although towards the middle and end, you wonder why any woman would have tolerated all that she has put up with.

I found the attempted murder scene of Ward at the steel plant ludicrous. Philip is about to push Ward off into the molten sludge but Ward turns around just in time for him to see Philip's hands about to push. When Philip realizes he's discovered, he just slams his fist to his face and says "I'm about to faint" as he almost collapses. Then nothing is said until much later when they are sitting around the dinner table. Come on, who does this!

I didn't feel like this was a complete waste of time, if for no other reason to watch an early Ingrid performance.

I usually don't agree much with Leonard Maltin, but he knew what he was talking about with this stinker. If it wasn't for the presence of such great actors like Robert Montgomery, George Sanders, and Ingrid Bergman, this would surely be a total bomb.

First of all, Montgomery and Sanders play against type: Montgomery is a brooding British aristocrat who suffers from suicidal tendancies. Sanders is his long-time friend who is as noble as he could be. They are both in love with Ingrid Bergman, a sweet young thing who marries Montgomery before she is aware of his psychosis and Sanders' love for her. Montgomery is instantly paranoid and jealous, and invites Sanders up for a visit to test his wife's fidelity and his friend's loyalty. This leads to actions that will forever change all of their existences.

The synopsis doesn't sound bad, but don't let that fool you. This is not your typical MGM glossy love triangle. Although it does fall under the "A" category, it is perhaps one of their worst disasters of the "golden era" (falling into the category of "Parnell", "Desire Me", and "The Kissing Bandit"). Montgomery, who had earlier played a psychotic character in MGM's "Night Must Fall", is plagued with melodramatic lines that would scare off any young heroine. How Ingrid Bergman couldn't see through him is beyond me.

Bergman, at the beginning of her successful American career, was on loan to MGM for this film (and "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" the same year), and should have thought twice about accepting. According to Robert Osborne of "TCM", the film did so bad during its first release that several years later when Bergman was a major star, MGM repackaged it, and released it so people would think it was a brand new film. She isn't bad in it (whenever was she bad?), but it was the type of film which could have done irreparable damage to her career.

The best of the leads is George Sanders, coming off many a scoundrel role. He is totally believable, and this did make a nice change of pace for him. In the supporting role of Montgomery's matronly mom, Lucille Watson does all she can to inject her usual wisdom, but is wasted as the bedridden matriarch.

My biggest complaint with this is the fast conclusion which rushes towards its finish with such disbelief that the viewer can't help but say, "OK, that was ridiculous!". The film might have ranked a measly two stars if it had thought about a different way to wrap up a story which was already unbelievable. I watched in disbelief as the writers hastily threw away the story and what little credibility there was before my eyes. All this on an "A" picture meant to showcase major stars. 'Tis pity she's a flop.

Christopher Isherwood, one of the leading authors and Marxist-influenced critics of the 1930s, served as primary scriptwriter of a film that he viewed as Marxist allegory. The character of the paranoid, clinically homicidal Robert Montgomery symbolizes the deformity that a capitalist system inflicts upon human potential. Just as the greed-driven lust for wealth deprives human beings of the capacity to love, enforcing a view of all human beings as rivals in a self-obsessed quest for wealth, Montgomery's character is a study in the congenital madness that perverts human potential into pathological narcissism (a condition that inevitably affects the falsely "populist" leaders of a society).

The movie would have worked if the roles of the two leads had been switched. Sanders has the dominating physical presence to be spoiled child-man one instant, aristocratic but generous and dignified boss the next--in other words, Sanders would have been totally convincing in the role that, for whatever reason, was beyond Robert Montgomery.

As for Montgomery, he was sufficiently good-looking to play the wronged victim who is exonerated and rewarded with the previously misplaced love of Ingrid Bergman.

This was an incredibly frustrating suspense film. While I usually love watching Robert Montgomery films, this one was a real chore thanks mostly to horrible plot holes--ones that any thinking writer should have spotted and corrected. Plus, and I hate to admit it, but Montgomery didn't do a particularly great job--he was way too broad and obvious--so obvious EVERYONE should have recognized his madness. It's a shame, as the general idea is wonderful and sure should have been better if only the film had some subtlety.

One of the biggest problems with the film is that there really isn't any suspense. So many plot elements would have been best to have been slowly revealed. However, you know from the onset that Montgomery is crazy and you wonder why those around him don't recognize this. After all, they are supposed to be intelligent--particularly George Sanders since he plays an engineer! Yet, when there are countless signs that Montgomery is unhinged AND he's dangerous and Sanders blindly blunders into Montgomery's evil web. As for Ingrid Bergman, she's an idiot not just because of this but because after just meeting Montgomery, they are married almost immediately--even though they know nothing about each other. All she knows is that he's insanely jealous and fundamentally lazy--both exceptional qualities in a husband!! While these and many other blunders are bad, the worst is the way the film ends. Montgomery kills himself and makes it look as if Sanders had murdered him. It's an interesting idea--one that made LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN a great film. However, having Montgomery write it all down and leave a record of this is just....stuuuupid!! The guy is supposed to be insane--not dumb! And, when out of the blue a psychiatrist appears just before Sanders is executed, he announces that he knew Montgomery was crazy and "all such paranoid personalities leave a record of what they did"!!! So, when they find the book detailing how he made his suicide look like murder, Sanders is freed just in the nick of time. Uggghh! Talk about contrived!

My advice is that you don't need to rush to see this one, though it is entertaining in a very non-demanding sort of way.

Robert Montgomery, Ingrid Bergman, and George Sanders in a romantic triangle. To make it more interesting, Philip (Montgomery) is kind of a loose cannon, having been under the care of Dr. Rameau (Oskar Homulka) in Paris. When Philip returns to his mother's business in England, he woos his friend Ward's (Sanders') girlfriend Stella (Bergman). The story is from a novel by James Hilton.

The doctor confers with the British Consul at the Sanitorium. Apparently, Philip's suicidal. But, on the other hand, he escapes from right under their noses. At a London hotel, Ward meets up with Philip. They swing out to Philip family estate (very swanky). There they meet Stella, mom's (Lucile Watson). "Your both crazy" she surmised, light-heartedly. She admits to mom that she likes Philip, but next thing she's out riding with Ward. Philip is just lounging with mom. But she can't help pushing Stella on him; comparing him favorably to Ward.

Conveniently, Ward shoves off. So Phillip and Stella start flirting (Bergman is positively glowing). Anyway, mom insists that Philip run the family business; Stella pretty much seconds the motion.He manages to offend just about everyone at the office "I don't pay you to think!" He even chews out Stella. Mostly because he assumes that Ward is still in the mix; somehow Philip managed to marry her without any significant lead-up. So, time for Ward to visit. "Is it dangerous to leave you two people alone?" Philip says, not all that jokingly. Philip goes off on a business trip.

Which is a clue for Stella to confide in Ward. "Sometimes I feel that he wants to kill my love." When Philip gets back, he gets creepy again, imply that Ward is messing around with her. Then things literally blow up at the factory with alienated workers striking and rioting. After telling them off, he panics, and concedes everything to the workers. But, then, there was an accident, an employee died. Suddenly, he's a man of the people; he realizes that working conditions are unsafe. Things seem all that great: Ward thinks that Philip tried to push him into a cauldron of molten iron; not to mention that Ward admits he loves Stella.

They tell her that much. Now Philip can't shake his mistrust: "why are you so cruel to me?" she wonders. He says he'll "put an end to" their impasse. But the word "end" could mean anything. Spooked, she decides to leave. And shows up at Ward's. Right off, though, Ward gets a call from Philip. Strangely, Philip agrees to divorce Stella. Aha! He then keeps a journal of what has the feel of a plan: invite Ward to a rendezvous...possibly a knife in the door jam might be a hint. No one else on the premises; makes it easy, no witnesses.

An argument boils up--Philip is the combustible substance. They actually both survive the meeting: but, the dagger is set in the doorman again. It looks as though Philip is impaled on it. Ward's prints are on the thing, as he had to remove it to enter. In court, it looks bad for Ward; but is Philip dead? Must be--Stella's in mourning. But was he murdered? Eek! Ward's guilty. Not only that, he's to be executed. In prison, Ward pleads with the minister to see Stella. Ambiguously, she says "of course we love each other", but since she'd never told him, he doesn't know. She dies get to visit a bit with him.

They literally need "a miracle." The doctor from Paris looks in on Stella. He fills her in: oddly, Philip had assumed Ward's name when he was in France. Perhaps to pretend to be him in more than name. Anyway, she's sure that Philip wasn't murdered. Patients like Philip "love to confess." He has, indeed; the trick is to find the notes. There's an heredity angle to this too--Philip's father had killed himself as well. Sounds a bit Victorian Gothic. He has diaries, says mom.

They're going to find the incriminating one. The hit package had been sent to France. We know that: the diary will be found; it will save Ward. Other than another glimpse of cool pre-war Citroen taxi, this is all predictable. She reads out the diary to the prison warden (confusingly called a "governor"). Ward and Stella now have each other. The end.

As many other reviewers pint out, Rage In Heaven has a great cast, and a solid premise. But it stumbles both as a mystery and as a psychological thriller. The fake murder is a nice touch, but we know that Philip is up to something nasty anyway. If he'd written the diary, but it wasn't known to the viewer until the mom tells Stella of it, then we'd have something. Instead, it's like like setting up bowling pins and kicking them over.

As stated, Bergman is just fine--maybe too fine. She's effervescent no matter what Philip does. What's the reason for her to automatically choose him over Ward? It's obvious right away that Philip would rather sit back and watch others okay around. His blow ups are in line with what a narcissistic rich guy would act like; but we don't know enough about him to see this as less than contrived behavior. Normally, I don't like a lot of backstory anyway, but a bit more would've helped here.

Along with Sanders and Bergman, Homulka's performance is very good. In fact, his eccentric but no-nonsense approach is both stereotypical of a psychiatrist and an acknowledgement of unconventional genius. So, the movie has plenty going for it, and is quite watchable for the good performances. Just don't expect to remember much about it, except for what it promised.

. . . to a famed actress of Yesteryear, Ingrid Bergman, as RAGE IN HEAVEN unspools. It's easy to see how director W.S. Van Dyke II and the screenwriters (Christopher Isherwood and Robert Thoeren) have no qualms about depicting Robert Montgomery starting to strangle Ingrid, because they're all guys and could have no idea about how this would make a relatively defenseless lady feel (even when it's "merely" play-acting). However, one should not be too eager to let novelist James Hilton off the hook for his possible crimes against Femininity, since it's quite possible that he created the character of "Stella Bergen Monrell" with Ms. Bergman specifically in mind (and even enjoyed a perverse thrill in anticipating how the future star of NOTORIOUS might shudder during the inevitable rehearsals, filming, and endless retakes demanded by the MEN behind this ghastly scene). If you're of the female persuasion and feel an intrepid spirit to risk viewing RAGE IN HEAVEN, please be forewarned that once you've seen something, and it very near impossible to Unsee it! For the sake of your peace of mind, I have described only one of the many deplorable outrages committed against Ingrid during RAGE IN HEAVEN. (And I even undertook this as a "necessary evil," to give you an inkling of what you'll be in for IF you stubbornly pursue your intention to watch RAGE IN HEAVEN!).

It doesn't seem possible that MGM would have approved the screenplay that Christopher Isherwood and Robert Thoeren fashioned out of James Hilton's novel. Full of inconsistencies, character motivations, unexplained actions, and abrupt dramatic unfolding, this screenplay was not ready for production.

Perhaps MGM was in the throes of its "dream factory" rush to get the project rolling that some exec simply skimmed over the inept script. What ever the case, the company put its full weight behind it, securing Robert Montgonery, Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders to head an excellent cast.

Director W. S. Van Dyke II's "efficient shooting style" didn't help matters, as the entire enterprise seemed rushed and erratic. If the cast and crew were upset, it's understandable. Here's a rather mediocre piece of work that had the potential for excellence. A pity.