mark.waltz This farce with demonic elements is extremely silly in structure but sort of disturbing in nature. It's not a wretched attempt at supernatural comedy, but when viewed along side with "The Exorcist", you wonder what was in the writer's mind when they put this on paper. It takes place among the British upper-crust and insinuates that the demon is some sort of mystical playmate for the young girl who lives there. The spirit is more pranksterish than frightening, although I'd be pretty scared of I saw a wine bottle move across a table without aide. Plants sprout and disappear back into the dirt again, and a ghastly laugh has a ring of sinister intentions to it. Cheaply made, this features a cast of unknowns, with only Gordon Harker familiar to me. So with Topper, Mrs. Unit's ghost, am invisible man and woman, and several other light-hearted spirits of the dead, this one remains as perhaps the most obscure, and definitely one of the wildest. It's just too bad that it focuses more on slapstick than story, because ultimately it is just a one-joke mess that never fully succeeds.

Spikeopath Things Happen At Night is directed by Francis Searle and adapted to screenplay by St. John Leigh Clowes from Frank Harvey's play The Poltergeist. It stars Gordon Harker, Alfred Drayton, Robertson Hare, Gwneth Vaughan, Olga Lindo, Wylie Watson and Gary Marsh. It's an Alliance Film Studio Production out of Twickenham and Southall Studios, with music by George Melachrino and cinematography by Leslie Rowson.To be honest, it feels a lot earlier than 1947, 37 would probably sit right. It's one of those farce horror films that come off as an excuse for some tom foolery perpetrated by a bunch of actors enjoying themselves. The plot basically revolves around the strange goings on at Hilton Grange, where a number of characters gather, there's some guff about milk, an insurance investigation and an engagement. Poltergeist activity is rife, with coal and apples flung about the place, chest of drawers moved, vases hovering above heads and so on. Characters react in different ways, as you would expect, and as the mystery to the haunting draws ever closer, the makers ramp up the speed to deliver the coup de grace. It's all very harmless and wonderfully gay, if a touch irritating as well! 5/10

classicsoncall Well this had a pretty good premise, and it started out like it could have been a fun romp, but there comes a point in the picture when things hit a wall and it just abruptly comes to an end. Too bad, because the British actors seemed to have a decent chemistry together, and things could have clicked with a more imaginative script. The film reminded me a little of the early Fifties TV series 'Topper', although the spirit haunting the Prescott home had no identity. The hauntings consisted of random events like pictures on the wall turned backwards and objects moving around, and there was a sense that the film makers weren't sure if they should go for comedy or horror. I guess I can answer that, there wasn't anything frightening at all to be afraid of. Gordon Harker is the nominal lead actor as insurance investigator Harris, and he has a few funny moments. However he can't sustain the picture by himself, and ultimately, the film ends as unceremoniously as it began, with each of the three main characters, Harker, Prescott (Afred Drayton) and Spenser (Garry Marsh) congratulating themselves on ridding the house of it's haunting presence, even though the poltergeist was determined to have the last laugh.

paul-edgar-curtis I found the film somewhat amusing and didn't resent the time I spent watching it, and yet I can think of few reasons to recommend it to anyone else. The acting, script and direction are all pretty much what one expects of a British comedy of that era, however there are no particularly appealing characters or situations to endear the movie to a viewer.It occurred to me, however, the storyline bears a vague structural similarity to the much-better-known 1973 blockbuster, THE EXORCIST; mysterious things happen in a large house, experts are called-in, attention centers on an adolescent girl, and finally, a team of experts combine their efforts to drive the supernatural force away. Expressed this way, it's a structure similar to most British science-fiction and supernatural movies of the 50's and 60's (well, the adolescent girl isn't AS common a factor, but still...) So, if you have a copy of this movie and you attend get-togethers of movie buffs, you can play a neat prank by announcing that this film was the "actual" source of the plot line for THE EXORCIST, and the articles about the teen-aged boy in the '50's were just used to provide details. With this introduction, film fans will find this older movie fascinating, and when it reaches its conclusion, they are bound to *gasp* at the parallel between the Insurance Investigator and the younger Priest. In fact, they'll enjoy the ending much more than if they had simply watched this otherwise unremarkable movie on its own merits.Of course, if your cinema-buff friends do any research, they'll discover there is no connection at all between the two films, and they will be disappointed. It's a risk you'll have to take.(I'm marking this review "Contains Spoilers" because it contains some hints and parallels regarding the story structure and the film's conclusion. If you have NOT seen this film or THE EXORCIST, I hope I haven't given anything substantial away.)