Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Red-Barracuda It should be said from the outset that the title Death Scream is not really very appropriate in describing this film. It's a much more low-key thriller than that pulpy title suggests. It was directed by the French film-maker René Clément, who had made a name for himself with Purple Noon (1960). It seems that the success with that film – the first screen version of Patricia Highsmith's character Ripley – led him to be called the French Hitchcock and resulted in him making a series of thrillers from then up until his final film in 1975. It seems the critics weren't very kind about his latter films, an opinion I disagree with. His final film Wanted: Babysitter (1975) is a very under-rated and effective film, while Death Scream is another that can hardly be described as terrible either. In fairness, it's the least successful Clément film I have seen but it still has something to offer.It's an English language French movie starring Faye Dunaway and Frank Langella. They play an American married couple living in Paris. They are in the midst of martial problems; he is highly secretive, while she is going through a nervous breakdown. To complicate matters, Langella is an industrial spy who retires from his job to the annoyance of his paymasters. Meanwhile, Dunaway's fragile psychological temperament leads to various problems, culminating with the couple's children mysteriously disappearing while out with her in the city. All the time in the background, there is talk of an enigmatic group called 'the organisation' who threatens the family.It's not the most dynamic of thrillers in truth and it is a little slow-paced. It could also have ramped up the suspense a bit as well. But Dunaway and Langella are good actors and the Parisian setting does offer an attractive backdrop to events. The story has just enough intrigue to keep the viewer engaged and it ultimately amounts to a good enough film, if a relatively minor one.

puppylove2009 I give this movie a 5/10.. because simply, I didn't understand what this movie was really about.. I couldn't see what was going on until maybe 3/4 of the way into it.. Faye Dunaway,character was slowly losing her mind.. Was the movie set to be in Paris or not? There was a lot of mention of "Phillipe" going to Paris.. then out of the blue, they are all speaking french.. It was a super hard plot for me to follow.. I thought the kids had killed themselves or had been murdered.. I also didn't agree with the fact that the little boy was allowed to play with guns. ill give the movie another look over and see what elements I was missing..

Coventry The one-line summary of this review is French, translates itself as "I don't understand" and actually refers to several aspects of this film… I read several articles where acclaimed critics and fellow directors reward Réné Clément with the title of "the French Hitchcock". I sincerely hope they didn't base this recognition on seeing "The Deadly Trap" and, if so, I don't understand. I also don't understand half of what's going on this movie and I most certainly don't understand (or better yet: refuse to accept) how anyone dares to deliver such a completely incoherent and deceptively pretentious mess of a film! "The Deadly Trap" revolves on – believe it or not – absolutely NOTHING! At least until very late into the second half of the film, it doesn't. Faye Dunaway and Frank Langella star as a married couple living in Paris with their two children. He behaves increasingly suspicious and secretive regarding his employment (and I do mean secretive, as we never get told what exactly he does for a living) and she portrays the good housewife slowly but surely descending in a downwards spiral of paranoia and insanity. Jill continuously fears that the children will become the target of malignant individuals, but Philippe hardly ever listens to a word she's saying. Then, of course, the children do get kidnapped by an organization that wants 'something' from Philippe in exchange for the children's lives. Even during this crucial point in the movie, we still haven't got a clue what it is they want (except for 'information') and the supposedly worldwide and dangerous organization imprisons the children in a nearby house with only one female babysitter to guard them. That's just totally retarded. Réné Clément's direction is flat and uninspired and he doesn't even make full use of the wondrously picturesque Parisian filming locations. The original French title means "The House under the Trees" and refers to the organization's hideout, but the beautiful house only features in the film for approximately 2,5 minutes. Faye Dunaway, at the top of her ravishing beauty around that time, is the only positive note I can bring myself to write about this unimaginably disappointing movie. She's quite convincing in her role, even though she probably didn't know what it was about, neither.

dbdumonteil From 1959 onwards (and with the success of "purple noon" (Ripley's first version),Clement wanted to become the French Hitchcock.He followed the rules quite well with the follow-up "les félins" then everything went wrong.After casting Jane Fonda ("les félins") he hired American stars for every "thriller" he made:Bronson,Ryan,Vaughn and here Dunaway.Why American stars by the way?They were all dubbed (with the exception of Fonda)for everybody cannot be Jodie Foster for that matter."La maison sous les arbres" is a would be suspenseful movie with heavy pretensions:a big set-up,where poor Dunaway is caught like a fly in a cobweb :her children are kidnapped and "they "keep them in... (well,check the title;it means "the house under the trees") No cigar ,and not even close.