Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Dead of Night (1945)
7/10
Grandfather of Horror Anthologies
23 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I remember seeing this as a child (on TV I add and NOT the original release!) and it made a lasting impression on me. I rented this to see if it my recollection of the film matched the reality. So did it? Well yes and no. This anthology, which is the forerunner of all those Technicolor Amicus productions in the 70's like Asylum and Tales from the Crypt, has its moments of creepiness and some moments of cringing 1940's acting. It's a UK PG rating which means you are not going to get blood soaked visceral scenes of dismemberment (indeed what 1940's film would?) and as I said before you will get received pronunciation with characters in the scenes. However that means that the film has to rely on the writing and the set up of the scenes themselves to install the creepiness I mentioned before – creepiness but not terror!

There may be spoilers from now on as I talk about the stories themselves so beware!

The stories are all linked to the central character (Walter Craig played by Mervyn Johns) who turns up at a cottage in the country where he has been asked to come by a friend. Walter enters the house and has snatches of Déjà Vu and then starts to predict what happens before things do. He then starts to recall a nightmare he has where all the people in the room appear just as they are now. However it's a nightmare that doesn't stay with him once he is awake. This then gives the opportunity for the all the other characters who have been invited there to relate stories of strange things that have happened to them.

We have the first two stories given in quick succession with no real depth to them – a Man who predicts an accident and a girl who meets the ghost of a child. Then we have the weakest story in the anthology – the comic one – written by H.G. Wells no less, about two love lorn golfers.

Then we get to the last two stories which are the best and it's always good to save the best till last. We have one story of a mirror that seems to possess a murderous influence over the person who looks in it. The mirror is brought for a man (Peter Cortland played by Ralph Michael) by his wife (Joan Cortland played by Googie Withers) who is the one relating the story. He then starts to briefly glimpse images in the mirror of another room, fleetingly at first but more permanent later on. This starts to drive Peter mad and so Joan goes to find out the history of the mirror – a history that seems to be repeating itself.... All these stories are all explained away by another guest at the 'party' - a doctor (Dr. Van Straaten played by Frederick Valk). He then gives an account of a case he was involved in one, he said, almost changed his mind about the supernatural.

This story is the most famous and the one everyone recalls who has seen the film –the segment about a man who believes his Ventriloquist's Dummy is actually alive! This segment is indeed the best and has Sir Michael Redgrave in the lead and so gives the whole performance some credibility. The creepiness of a Ventriloquist's Dummy is bad enough but when we see the dummy appear to speak with no one else in the room... well that is creepy. Yet we do not see the dummy move on its own and we only hear the dummy talk unless the Ventriloquist is with it where we see the lips move. So indeed is the dummy alive or is the Ventriloquist mad? The doctor leaves the story open.

Then comes the twist in the whole tale – Walter Craig predicts that something evil will happen when the Doctor breaks his glasses. Everything gone before can be explained away as coincidence and mass hysteria or madness but rooted in reality. The Doctor then beaks his glasses and the whole thing turn surreal. Walter Craig murders the doctor and then starts to appear in all the stories gone before always being chased and hunted by the characters and being murdered in all. Then in the last flashback we see Walter Craig in a prison cell trapped with the Ventriloquist's Dummy with all the other characters peering through the bars at unnatural angles. The Dummy then slowly turns its head and under its own influence starts to walk towards him and grasps its hands around his neck and.......Walter Craig wakes up in bed. It's all been a dream!

Getting dressed he takes a phone call from his friend. He wants him to come down to his country cottage for the weekend.........

The last 15 minutes of the film will stay with you – if not because you were terrified by it because the story was told so well and the surreal feeling coupled with the black and white photography will get into your mind!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Sherlock Holmes film rather than a Saucy Jack one!
11 May 2004
Having just watched this film I thought I would add my penny's worth to IMDB.

I have to admit that I am a fan of Murder By Decree and there have been comparisons between that film and A Study In Terror. In my mind they are quite dissimilar.

A Study In Terror is what I would call a Sherlock Holmes film with the murders of Jack the Ripper playing second to the characters whereas Murder By Decree is a film about Jack the Ripper with Sherlock Holmes playing second to the murders and the plot. I think this is borne out in that Murder By Decree you could have actually had any two detectives investigating the murders and the film would have worked. A lot of attention is paid to the historical facts and the timing and places of the murders. In A Study in Terror the victims are 'cannon fodder' and the facts not that historically correct. There was no mention of the 'Jewes' message left on the wall after the infamous double murder and, although Mary Kelly was murdered indoors, it was in a ground floor room. That is not to say A Study In Terror is not a good film, it is. We have an instantly recognisable Sherlock in John Neville who plays the part well; the supporting cast are good in their own right to. Interestingly Frank Finley played Lestrade in both A Study in Terror and Murder by Decree and Anthony Quale also appears in both films but in different characters.

I cared more about the victims in Murder by Decree (especially the scene with Annie Crook in the mental institution) than I did A Study in Terror and I think that is why I like that film more. Still A Study in Terror will keep you interested and I would recommend both films but for different reasons.
26 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A reasoned view
5 March 2004
Ok, so the acting was rather theatrical and the message rather patriotic. But, like Henry VI, it was a propaganda war film to stir the spirit of the English people in the height of the second world war. It didn't have the writing credits of Shakespeare but this must also be taken into consideration. To critise a film written for the sole purpose of bolstering the battered and bombed people of the British Isles in WWII and comparing it with what we are used to now as historical films (although Braveheart, The Patriot and U571 may be more deserving of criticism than The Prime Minister) is being blindsighted.

This film should be considered for what it's purpose is and what film has ever portrayed any historical figure in his or her real light. We have documentaries for that.

Just watch the film for what it is.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed