hellholehorror This is a preposterous film. Olivia Hussey looked stunning although this alone does not make a film. I found it rather stupid, too slow and uneventful. Basically it is a thriller set in the thirties. It is not very thrilling. It is not violent. The secret passages around the house are cool. Best avoided really.

Paul Evans Cyrus West has a huge fortune to leave. Twenty years after his death he still holds the strings to his family, he arranges for his family, solicitor and faithful housekeeper to gather for the reading of his will. It's 1934 and Glyncliffe Manor plays host. Cyrus was considered an eccentric, ahead of his time, he presents his bequest via moving pictures, presenting his legacy from beyond the grave. His fortune is left to the beautiful Annabelle, just because she shared the same surname, West. Wanting to put a bittersweet twist on the affair Cyrus added a proviso, should the heir die or be judged insane in a twelve hour period the legacy would go to a second heir. Events that evening are made all the more complicated when Doctor Hendricks bursts in with a warning, an escaped psychopathic killer is on the loose, he believes he's a cat, killing his victims with his bare hands. Annabelle has a tough night ahead, a killer on the loose and a greedy grouping of dubious relatives.I'll start off by saying I think it's a really great movie, I prefer this to the previous version. It was produced more so as a horror/thriller then a supernatural thriller. It does have some moments of humour which work, mostly coming from Paul Jones.Annabelle is set up nicely as the victim, she is made sweet, nice, kind, such a contrast to most of the others who are shown as greedy, devious, even murderous. Paul being the exception.The acting is solid as opposed to awesome, it's the two seniors that I enjoy most, Wilfred Hyde White and Beatrix Lehmann, both are so much fun, quite underrated gems. Honor Blackman too is excellent, she's tough but rather creepy. Carol Lynley played the English Rose really well, I had no idea she was a native New Yorker. This film was not Edward Fox's finest moment, I think he's guilty of overacting somewhat, he's definitely enjoying himself, just a little too much.There are some excellent moments in this film, some of the best ones include, the disappearance of Mrs Crosbie, the theft of a slumbering Annabelle's necklace and of course the finale. That torture room was a rather nasty creation, although nobody lost any blood after being shot.Another good moment, the attack on Susan was ruined a little as it ended in a somewhat cartoon sketch.Mrs Pleasant says to Annabelle 'The Canary in a cage almost dies of fright when the cat walks around the cage. Dies a thousand deaths, although it's quite safe.' It's a great analogy for the film, with the house acting as the cage, and the killer, the cat.Such an underrated film. 9/10

BaronBl00d Boy! It took me quite some time to track down a copy of this film that I remembered seeing on HBO in the early 80's. I saw it then and remembered I rather liked the film as a small(OK not so small) young man. The film is obviously a remake of a film that has been done by the same title at least twice - really three times. Paul Leni's silent masterpiece from 1927. The Bob Hope version that is easily the most fun. Those two used the same title but John Willard's play was also used in 1930's The Cat Creeps. Let us not be naive; however, that this is it. The Willard ply has been the basis for any and all haunted house pictures since the 1927 version(The Old Dark House and James Whale owe it immensely). Creaky doors. Hidden panels. Masked killers. A will reading at night. A hand from a hidden panel. Eyes moving in pictures. All these and many more are due to the many versions of this wonderful play. Now, I digress with a brief history of the play to say that I do not agree with those that this film, the 1978 version, was unnecessary and trivial. Having just watched it again, I found it withstands the test of time rather well. Is it as good as the silent film or the Hope film? Probably not(definitely not the silent), but it is an enjoyable film nonetheless. The plot has been changed a bit here, but the general spirit is basically the same. What I do think is that this film clearly has the best acting. We get a nice array of British acting stalwarts: Dame Wendy Hiller as the lawyer Allison Crosby(Is it just me or did anyone else find her quite alluring in that well-tailored business suit?) I love Hiller's vocal intonations and think she is a might good actress and, even though she is an Oscar-winner, a generally forgotten actress. Anyway, she is in top form here. Then there is Daniel Massey playing what he plays best: irritating, gruffy, huffy-puffy men. Lovely, and I mean just lovely Carol Lynley. She looks like an angel in this film. She is an adequate actress as well and does a pretty good job with the comedic by-play she has with Michael Callan as the Bob Hope funny person. Callan desperately tries to be funny but mostly misfires. He is not horrible though. Honor Blackman and lovely Olivia Hussey(somewhat wasted I thought) play a "couple" in every sense of that word. Strangely I do not remember that at all in the 1927 or 1939 film versions. Spooky Beatrix Lehmann looks like she just walked out of her sarcophagus. She definitely has an air about her. Then we get Edward Fox chewing up the scenery in his small role as only he can, and Wilfred Hyde-White stealing the show, so to speak, as the deceased who talks to his relatives contemptuously through a film. He is always wonderful. The director Radley Metzger does a good job working with his cast(it is actually his screenplay being used here). Metzger uses his own vision for many things in the play - I mean he changes things quite a bit but the general spirit of the Willard play remains intact. There are some very creepy scenes from Hiller's body being found to the closing one with Fox, Lynley, and Peter McEnery. There is also a plethora of wonderful images from the icy vault that kept the secret films in tact for twenty years to the set pieces, costumes, etc... Producer Richard Gordon obviously used what financial resources he had well as this film looks very stylish. It is a stylish, fun film. Really its only real flaw was when it came out. Audiences were really not looking for stylish film in 1978. After all it was the dawn of the 1980's - what for me is the least stylish decade in all film history.

dbborroughs This film version of greedy relatives gathering for the reading of a will has been crucified in some corners as a pale shadow of the original, or if not the original the Bob Hope version. While certainly no classic this is a fun retelling of the story that works because the cast is so enjoyable to watch and because the old story works even if its done half way decently.This was the first version of the story that I ever saw. Endless reruns on HBO years ago have burned portions of this film into my mind, but I didn't mind since the film was just a good time passer.No, its not perfect. The 1970's retro feel that it has doesn't really work and makes the film feel like it doesn't belong anywhere. There were several films in the 1970's set in the 20's, 30's or 40's that suffered similar fates, particularly if they had any European connections. This is not the place to discuss it, but when you see this film you'll understand what I mean. And you should see this since its good but far from great. Is this the version if you can only see one go at the story? No, that would probably be the Bob Hope version, but if you want something for a rainy Sunday that won't tax the brain, this is it.7 out of 10 on the pure enjoyment scale.