nomoons11 This is one of those films that gets lost in the shuffle when it comes to scary thriller films. It needs a re-look by everyone.I'll say right off that I'm a huge Rosalind Russell fan but she was sorta bland in this one. She's a lot better in her screwball comedies. She has a co-headliner in this and he should be cause...he's the star.Robert Montgomery is just super creepy in this. He plays the perfect sociopath in this fine little thriller. You wouldn't think with him in this it would come off as eery and scary as it does but he plays the villain so well it was a pleasure to watch. What makes him so good is that during the film you know he's bad but he doesn't come off that way. It's in a sorta roundabout way with sly inferences here and there. Wait until the end though. Evil finally rears its ugly head.This film is well worth a look in horror/thriller circles. I think it gets overlooked because of its age. Even for 1937 though, it's damn effective if your gonna watch this on a cold/dark Saturday night. Give it a try and be amazed on how well it works.

dougdoepke Following a grisly murder, a pushy stranger worms his way into a rich, old lady's remote household, much to disapproval of her uptight secretary.What a good touch when Danny (Montgomery) roughly shoves the house cat and then smilingly tells Mrs. Bramson (Witty) how much he likes the little four-footed critters—a neat introduction to his devious nature. I wish the rest of the movie were this well executed. Aside from being overlong and too talky as other reviewers point out, (some silent mood scenes are badly needed), there's a big hole in the middle that's been generally overlooked. Surprisingly, it concerns that otherwise excellent actress Rosalind Russell.Key to the plot is the highly refined, severely repressed Olivia's (Russell) conflict over Danny. She's both attracted and repelled by him. He's such a low, boisterous type, it's hard to see her attraction to him at any level. But the script has wisely prepared us with her attraction to dark, woodsy things. Now, the movie's key scene is in the kitchen where Danny boldly confronts Olivia's repressed attraction. To this point, Olivia has had only one outward emotion, namely an emotionless expression consonant with her inner discipline and station in the household. Danny's aim is to force from her an acknowledgment of what he knows she feels even though she won't admit it even to herself.Crucial to this pivotal scene is that actress Russell convey even the slightest expression of the inner conflict she is now experiencing— conflict we know she's experiencing from the dialog. But try as I have, I can't spot a single change of expression. She's grudgingly okaying the words, but without the necessary conflicted behavior. In short, her words say one thing, her manner another. Thus, we're not drawn into her conflict, we merely observe it in the dialog. And crucially-- instead of becoming active participants in the story, we're encouraged to remain passive observers.In terms of story development, the role of Olivia becomes unconvincing, especially since the deadpan continues for the rest of the film. It's especially implausible when the plot has her hide the severed head in order to save Danny from the law. As a result, her motivations from the kitchen scene on ring hollow, thereby undercutting her pivotal role in the movie as a whole. It wouldn't be accurate to say that Russell therefore walks through the part in uninterested fashion. Rather, I'm inclined to blame director Thorpe for not providing the proper cues, especially in that key kitchen scene. At the same time, I wish Montgomery's Danny were not so extreme, bordering at times on the clownish. For a usually restrained actor, it's a real departure, robbing his character of any hint of needed menace. Still and all, the idea of Danny's acting out for the benefit of his "double"— the one that emerges in the mirror scene at the end-- remains a provocative one.Where Danny's blustery, overdone charm really works is with tyrannical old Mrs. Bramson. His is just the kind of overriding personality that would melt her icy reserve. At the same time, Witty steals the film with a rock solid performance, especially during that exhausting breakdown scene that even had me gasping for breath. I also like that morbid sight-seeing tour with E. E. Clive as the guide. That people would pay to see a gravesite suggests to me the basic gentility of small town England for whom murder is such an unusual and curious event. I gather from IMDb that studio head L. B. Mayer didn't like the results and didn't want to release the film. Whatever the failings, It's far from being that bad. Ironically, it appears that had Mayer himself wanted to do justice to the material, he would have assigned a top studio director instead of the thoroughly mediocre Thorpe (check out his credits). In fact, the movie as a whole suffers from uninspired direction, its rich atmospheric potential left visually untapped. As far as I can tell, Thorpe simply filmed the script that was handed him and nothing more. After all, his reputation with the studio rested on efficiency, i.e. bringing projects in under budget.I just wish someone like Hitchcock had gotten hold of the material first. With its rich potential for nuance and atmosphere, a gifted psychologist like Hitch could have made something really memorable. Unfortunately, as the movie stands, it's a long way from that point.

Robert J. Maxwell Dame May Witty is a bad-tempered wheelchair-bound old woman. She's attended by her niece, Rosalind Russell, a sullen and repressed woman who keeps her eager suitor, Alan Marshal, at arm's length. He's a lawyer in the city, while Witty and Russell live in a woodland cottage. There are two women who serve as day maids. Nota bene: That's four women alone in an isolated house, with two of them gone by nightfall. Always a great set-up for a slasher movie.Then Robert Montgomery shows up. He's more of a caricature than a character. He looks cocky. A cigarette dangles from his lips and he keeps his thumbs hooked in his trouser pockets. He wears this weird topper, a flat hat wider than his head, like a woolen dinner plate.But, man, is he bewitching. He's always cheerful, as quick and perceptive about people as a particularly savvy shrink. He has an Irish accent. He's candid and forthright about himself and what he sees in others. He's loaded with this fey charm and it's easy for him to worm his way into the brutal old lady's graces so that, after some initial protests, she happily hires him as something between a personal attendant and a son.It isn't as though Robert Montgomery didn't have problems, though. Chief among them are the facts, which emerge only point by point during the story, that he's a blatant liar and a sneaky murderer who totes the head of his latest victim around in a hatbox with him.The play was written in 1934. A bit more than thirty years earlier Queen Victoria was on the throne. Victorian England was notorious for its repression of everything that could possibly be defined as "improper", meaning mostly sex and violence but also bad manners and a careless regard for class distinctions. Furniture legs were covered with little draperies. A chicken's "breasts and thighs" became "white and dark meat." It's the kind of atmosphere in which evil could pop unexpectedly, like a pierced carbuncle, an atmosphere that could produce Stevenson's "Doctor Jeykll and Mr. Hyde" or an Alfred Hitchcock.The play's author, Emlyn Williams, was born in 1905 and some of these values are carried over into his plot. Montgomery's character, Danny, smilingly admits that he's always "acting", as if eyes were staring at him. Every once in a while, though he doesn't tell Russell or anyone else, the zit pops and he dismembers somebody.Montgomery does a fine job with Danny. He always appears gawky. His movements are sudden and jerky, and his speech comes in bursts. Eventually, along with Russell, the viewer realizes that Danny is not merely acting but overacting. He races around singing and whistling and flattering the grouchy matron. He pushes her wheelchair too quickly. Everything he does is in fits and spasms.Russell's part is pretty complicated. She has to begin as a buttoned-up spinster who resents the lower-class Danny, but then becomes interested in him, half repelled and half attracted sexually, so much so that she saves his bacon when the police begin to suspect him of a local murder.Danny is the sort of guy who, if he didn't exist, would not be necessary to invent, but he does accomplish some good unwittingly. He opens up Rosalind Russell's passions and causes to her act out her desires.The movie is a little slow. It's not the action-filled mystery with cheap effects that we've become used to. The pace picks up towards the end. And it's not without weakness. The cynical and tough old lady finds herself alone in the house at night and instantly turns into a quivering mass of Jello. There's been no indication that this transmogrification from brick wall into vulnerability was coming -- or was even possible.But, that aside, it's a neatly drawn picture of aborted predation, of character and the evolution of character.

MartinHafer Apparently, I am atypical of most people's reaction to this film. With a very respectable 7.2 score, you'd assume it's an above average film and to many it is. In fact, my review and one other are the lowest rated reviews so far on IMDb for this film. However, despite having a great atmosphere and sense of foreboding, I really disliked the film because of its many plot holes and irrational decisions by the characters. And, because of all the very serious plot problems, I am amazed so many people saw this as a perfect or near-perfect film with many reviews giving it a 9 or 10.What I liked, at least initially, was Robert Montgomery's characterization. He played a very charming narcissistic sociopath. He was able to insinuate himself into a rich widow's confidence because he was so clever and manipulative and I loved this aspect of the film. Likewise, at times the atmosphere of the film was very dark and foreboding--it really set you on edge.However, there was so much to dislike if you actually paid attention to the characters. At first, Rosalind Russell seemed very smart and insightful. She saw right through Montgomery's false charms. However, late in the film she simply behaved like she'd had a traumatic brain injury!! First, when the police inspector went through Montgomery's belongings, he came upon a suitcase that obviously had SOMETHING incriminating inside. Yet, inexplicably, Russell then claims the bag is hers!! Why?! She already assumed he was a murderer and was afraid of him--so why stop the inspector from looking inside the bag?! Then, at the end of the film, she leaves the home--and she announces it's for good because she is so afraid of Montgomery. BUT, just a bit later, she returns and brings no one with her--no police backup--nothing. And, she then confronts Montgomery ALL ALONE and insists that he is a killer--at which point he naturally tries to kill her (duh)!! Only because the police happen to arrive at that moment is this dumb dame saved at all!! A truly horrible ending to the film. Now if she'd returned with the police waiting outside and got him to try to kill her or confess to the murders, then this could have worked. As it is, it just seemed stupid.Other things to dislike is Montgomery's performance late in the film where he transforms from smart and evil to silly--like a kid in a high school play trying to pretend to be crazy! He gyrates, faints and over-emotes so badly, it's laughable and transformed a brilliant performance to a campy one. Additionally, the biggest other complaint is that unlike a good mystery/suspense film, there really are no "red herrings". In other words, no one else in the film COULD have committed the murders and so there is no sense of suspense. Having someone else be the actual killer and Montgomery only a schemer would have been a great twist--especially if Montgomery eventually had to take on the real killer. Instead, it was all so obvious and dopey as the film concluded.My verdict is to watch the first 2/3 of the film, then turn it off and create your own ending in your mind. Up until then, it's rather brilliant. You certainly couldn't do any worse!