manchester_england2004 Here it is, folks, my favourite Hammer film. And it's quite ironic that as a horror fan more than a thriller fan that I should find this Hammer thriller a better, more riveting film than any of their horror films. But life can work out that way sometimes.The plot starts off with a simple concept, which goes as follows - the parents of a 10-year old boy pick him up from an institution he's being held in and bring him back home. It's implied that the boy has done something wrong that led him to being confined. But we're never told what. It's this air of mystery throughout the film that forms the frame on which the rest of the other great aspects of the film are built. The atmosphere at times is reminiscent of the other masterpiece Bette Davis starred in - WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? But the two films are very different in other ways.There are some interesting characters to be found here.The boy's mother, played brilliantly by Wendy Craig, is a depressed woman, easily upset and unable to cope with the responsibilities of life, particularly motherhood. The boy's father, played equally brilliantly by James Villiers, is a calm man, in control but somewhat impatient of his wife's mannerisms and her behaviour. You get the impression that things weren't always this way and that once their marriage and home life was a happy one before whatever sad event caused things to change. This all adds to the air of mystery and the film keeps you guessing until late on.Then we have the boy's nanny, a sinister woman with a very creepy vibe about her, played to perfection by the one and only Bette Davis. Does the boy really have anything to fear from his dear, old nanny? Or are his fears irrational? You'll have to watch the film to find out. But the film really keeps you guessing.Jill Bennett plays the sister of Wendy Craig's character. Bennett's character is, on the surface, much stronger-willed than Craig's and finds the boy's behaviour ridiculous at times. The contrast in the characters of the two sisters is interesting but what's more interesting still, is that she does have a vulnerability of her own, which I won't reveal here.The film is well-paced and the script is simply excellent (kudos to Jimmy Sangster). Too many thrillers, particularly Italian ones that I've seen, have thrown away the solid foundation they are initially built on by descending into tedium. THE NANNY doesn't fall into that trap. It keeps you on the edge of your seat and you will want to stay with the film until the mystery is solved. The revelations don't disappoint or ruin what comes before them either. It's all rather disturbing when the truth comes out but it's not depressing to watch. There is much suspense and tension in those scenes. Seth Holt does an outstanding job.Overall, THE NANNY is my favourite Hammer film. There's none of the cheesiness found in their better known horror films. This is a serious film from beginning to end and a true mystery thriller masterpiece.

gavin6942 There is just something not quite right when Bette Davis stars as an English nanny. And is her 10 year-old charge (William Dix) an emotionally disturbed murderer or just an insolent brat? When it comes to Hammer, I am not terribly familiar with director Seth Holt. Aside from "Blood From the Mummy's Tomb" (1971), he seemed to steer clear of the horror stuff. Even "Nanny" is not horror in the truest sense, leaning more towards suspense or thriller territory.Whereas Holt is not well known to me, writer-producer Jimmy Sangster is something of a legend. Dracula? Frankenstein? Mummy? "The Snorkel"? All Sangster. And he does not disappoint us here, presently a complex psychological tale where each and every character seems to have something wrong with them.The real gem of the picture? Not Bette Davis (who does alright, but I have personally never cared for her). Of course, it would be Pamela Franklin. Probably best known for "Legend of Hell House", she shines here as the teenage neighbor who may be up to no good... though nothing more than harmless trouble. I could watch anything with Franklin in it, which makes it all the more unfortunate that she has not acted in over thirty years.Definitely a better than average film, and a great Hammer film -- even without mad scientists or vampires! (As far as 1965 goes, however, I did prefer "A Study in Terror". But two good films again this month!)

Robert J. Maxwell Little Joey Fane (Dix) is released from some kind of Home For Disturbed Children, although the staff believe they've failed to refurbish him constructively. Boy, is that kid a pain.He's about ten years old, dominates his weekly mother (the ski-slope nosed Craig), hates his forbearing nanny (Davis) and makes constant irrational demands. He won't eat anything nanny cooks for him, although he steals scraps from his Dad's plate. He makes nanny swear that she will never enter while he is bathing. She takes the oath with an indulgent smile. He plays mean tricks on her. We don't know why because the nanny has been a loyal member of the household since Joey's Mom was a child. He's not a cute kid, either. He's dish faced and seems to look up from under his brows, always with a scowl of suspicion.He explains what he thinks is going on in the household to his new upstairs neighbor (Franklin). This is the best idea he's had so far, because Pamela Franklin, although only fourteen, is pert, cute, and sexy -- and she knows it too. At any rate, Joey tells Franklin that nanny drowned his little sister and is trying to poison him and his mother. Flashbacks illustrate the narrative he carries around in his head and some of the historical reality as well.I won't spoil the rolling revelations but they're not exactly what one might expect. This movie, and several others like it, followed the success of "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" But this is more grounded in reality. There are no grotesqueries in the make ups or acting. Violence is minimal. Nobody is kept prisoner, so there are no suspenseful scenes of outside intruders trying unsuccessfully to rescue anyone -- vide "Gaslight," "Lady in a Cage," inter alia.The characters may seem to be a bit overdrawn and stereotyped -- no-nonsense Dad, enfeebled Mom, indulgent nanny, nasty child, an Auntie who has a weak heart and whose destiny we can fathom at once. But there's no problem with the acting. The cast is quite good, even the little brat who should be stomped like a cockroach. Betty Davis is a problem though. Here eyebrows have been darkened and her hair done in close curls so she seems to be more of a mannequin than a human being. Also, she's a fine actress but, like Burt Lancaster, really ought to avoid any roles that call for an accent.It's no masterpiece of film making -- the plot is lumbering and slow -- but it could have been much less subtle than it is.

Witchfinder General 666 No, it's not an annoying sitcom from the 90s, but a creepy 60s thriller from the masters of British Horror. Probably director Seth Holt's most famous film, "The Nanny" of 1965 is a different, but highly suspenseful thriller from the great British Hammer Studios. While the Hammer Stuidos are best known for their stylish Gothic Horror films, they also produced a bunch of tense Hitchcockian thrillers, of which "The Nanny" is probably the most widely known. After the success of Robert Aldrich's "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane" (1962) and "Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte" (1964), the aging Bette Davis had established herself in the Horror/Thriller genre, and "The Nanny" definitely is a film that strongly relies on this great leading actress.Having spent a longer period of time in a special boarding school for disturbed children after his baby sister's mysterious death, 10-year old Joey is released to go home to his parents' house. The incident has left his mother with clinical depressions and hysteria, and his father is constantly busy. From the moment he is picked up from the boarding school, the boy shows extreme animosity towards the nanny, refusing to eat anything that she cooks and accusing her of trying to poison him. The nanny reacts with kindness to all his accusations. However, there is something uncanny about this constantly friendly and devoted elderly lady...Bette Davis delivers a truly chilling performance in the role of the superficially friendly but sinister Nanny. 10-year old William Dix is also amazingly good in the lead. The film is creepily shot in black and white and the storyline bears several interesting twists. One of the film's greatest assets is the fact that it manages too keep up the suspense, and even the mystery about who is telling the truth. The twists are unpredictable, and it isn't clear until the film's climax whether the nanny is evil, or just the victim of a disturbed boy's morbid fantasy. Overall this is a truly suspenseful and sometimes disturbing thriller that should definitely not be missed by my fellow Hammer fans. Personally, I still prefer Hammer's Gothic Horror films, but "The Nanny" definitely is a film that all lovers of suspense should appreciate. Highly recommended.