Maidexpl
Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast
Kailansorac
Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.
Ava-Grace Willis
Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.
35541m
This project was done in a hurry when a proposal to make a film of Ned Kelly was axed by MGM due to budget worries (at this time Tom Jones had been filmed but not released).It is not clear why Riesz decided to make a film of this play. Clearly, the part of Danny is tailor made for some show-off acting and Finney grabs the bull by the horns here. His only real mistake is to put on a silly 'boyo Welsh accent. True, the character was Welsh in the play but that's because the part was written by the playwright to play himself. Otherwise, there is no dramatic need for Danny to have a Welsh accent and Robert Montgomery didn't bother in the 1937 version.The main difference between the film and the play is that the film reveals its hand in the first minute that Danny is a psycho killer. In the play, its not clear until near the end and much of the dialogue are cat n'mouse exchanges between Danny and Olivia.The result of this is to create a somewhat boring film; you know who the killer is and thus spend an hour and a hour waiting for him to explode. When he does, it has little logic and, to an audience used to the likes of Psycho and its rip-offs like Homicidal, seeing Finney deliver one blow to an off-screen body that you never get to see was always going to be a serious let-down. His retreat into gibberish at the end I thought was uncharacteristic and a cop-out. You never find out who the real Danny is and why he has acted like he has done. I did enjoy the 'hangbags' between Sheila Hancock and Susan Hampshire on the high street of an authentically 60s wet Hertfordshire town.
swabidoo
To each his own taste, but I have to disagree with the other review of this movie. I love Albert Finney's performance as a psychopath who has the gift of perceiving the innermost needs of those he meets and then molding his own personality to take advantage of those needs. (I don't know anyone from Wales, nor do I know what a stereotypical "mad Welshman" is.) He and Mona Washbourne play off each other superbly. I do agree with the other review's assessment of the cinematography, and especially love the lighting. To see Finney in TOM JONES (previous) or TWO FOR THE ROAD (following), although he is young, his face does have character and expression lines - he is human. The lighting in this movie smooths his face to make it seem devoid of affect; you feel that his reactions to the people and the world around him spring not from human emotion but from insanity. If you're an Albert Finney fan I definitely recommend viewing this movie and making your own judgment.
Neil Doyle
Emlyn Williams would never recognize what the British have done to his play about a psychotic killer, recycled from the 1937 film that starred ROBERT MONTGOMERY, ROSALIND RUSSELL and DAME MAY Witty.What is supposed to be a tense household situation that slowly builds to a horrific climax, is treated like a stylish drawing room drama with modern British sensibilities that takes time establishing any of the characters. Only gradually does ALBERT FINNEY get under the skin of his character, the cheerfully casual Danny who charms the wheelchair-bound mistress of a secluded British household in the country. But unfortunately, he's even more theatrical in the role than Robert Montgomery was in the original, and that's saying something.In fact, the whole treatment here is more obvious than it should be. The glimpse we do get of Finney's inner torment is almost laughable, accompanied by discordant chords of frantic music on the soundtrack.His flawed performance is the centerpiece of the melodrama and weakens the film, just as Robert Montgomery's did in the '37 version. By comparison, this film opens things up a bit more and is less stagey than that earlier film in which Dame May Witty stole the show.MONA WASHBOURNE does nicely in the Dame May Witty role and the other players are competent enough, but the camera is almost always on Finney in his pivotal role. Finney and that elusive hatbox hiding a head.Chilling idea is less than chilling in the way it's executed here. The story is more of a tease than anything else. Would love to see what Hitchcock would have done with this material.Sadly, for too much of its running time it manages to be boring.
katerinand
The remake of the 1937 film was slaughtered both by critics and audience at the time it premiered and there was mainly one reason for it:the crazed fans of Albert Finney were absolutely shocked,as he daringly chose the role of the psychotic ''killer with the angelic face'', following his all-time favorite roles of ''Saturday night and Sunday morning''and, particularly, ''Tom Jones''.As many historians mention, the ''MGM wives'' who were few of the first to see the film, turned violently against the gifted director, Karel Reisz, shouting ''what have you done to that beautiful boy?''!But this is not a serious reason to dismiss an, overall, very good film, which, however, has some serious flaws.The use of music is exaggerated and some times irritating and, only in the first part of the film, Finney doesn't quite know how to tackle with his disturbed character. But the photography is great, Mona Washbourne gives a superb performance and Karel Reisz does a great job, not only updating the old text and bringing it within the ''realism'' of the British Free Cinema movement, but also with his masterful camera movements and his use of editing and abruptly cutting to different scenes, he creates an imposing psychological thriller, where what you don't see is more disturbing than what you do. Being one of the greatest actors EVER, Finney soon finds a convincing attitude for his character and the last part of the film is absolutely brilliant as a whole.It should be re-examined and re-appreciated, that's why it has to come out on VHS and DVD a.s.a.p.! 7.5/10
