5/10
Somewhat dated suspense thriller.
31 December 2009
I am a fan of classic film noire/suspense films, but this one doesn't do it for me for the following reasons: 1. The acting is poor and often non-believable. For example, Ethel Barrymore keeps stirring from a near comatose state of health wide eyed, fully alert with a strong voice. It reminded me of the type of acting one would expect in a silent picture where the visual performance is over-acted to compensate for lack of vocal performance. She was nominated for Oscar for this film and is therefore clear evidence of the influence the Barrymore's had in Hollywood at this time - great acting not a prerequisite. Even the family dog can't act the part; he is an old bulldog more infirmed than Ethel Barrymore's character, but apparently somehow manages high leaps thru open windows. 2. The set is suspect. The central architecture feature for the film, i.e., the spiral staircase, is actually a steel tread job, the type one would expect in a factory, not a stately home. It is clear that this theme was added as an afterthought. 3. Unless I'm missing something, the plot is frustratingly shallow. For me, it was one of those films that left me with an empty feeling. The whole premise is a mass murderer who has a particular dislike for people with "afflictions". Why? What was the murderer trying to accomplish by murdering them?

Sorry, this one doesn't rate highly with me.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed