Dr. Crippen

A compact, modestly budgeted movie that looks perfectly at home on home video (which is how I saw it). "Dr. Crippen" boasts flavorful performances by Donald Pleasence as the not-so-good doctor, Coral Browne as the long-suffering as well as insufferable Belle, and a pre-"Collector" Samantha Eggar as Ethel Le Neve, every unhappily married middle-aged man's fantasy. Casting the British-born Pleasence and Australian native Browne as the American Crippens hardly seems to matter. Eggar may have been too beautiful to play Le Neve (who, judging from photographs, was still a darkly attractive young woman). The movie is, perhaps, too economical; although we do get to see Crippen and Le Neve disguised as father and son for their ill-fated ocean voyage, I wished other colorful details of the case had also been re-created, such as Crippen's recklessly escorting Le Neve to a charity ball shortly after his wife's disappearance. As for the movie's suggestion that Crippen wasn't truly guilty of premeditated murder, my reply is: perhaps - but that doesn't really explain why Crippen cut up his wife's body and buried the pieces in the coal cellar.

The real Ethel Le Neve was still alive when this film was first released (she died in 1967). One wonders if she saw it. One wonders what she thought if she had.

A dour little movie, with flat out ugly photography and ill-matched pairings. In short, the 90- minutes is something of an ordeal to sit through, that is, if you have the usual movie expectations. I don't know what the director told lead actor Pleasance (Crippen), but he acts like he swallowed a lemon throughout, even when in the loving company of the luscious Eggar (Ethel). I know he's supposed to be repressed, but his permanent paralysis appears unreal. Then too, seeing this unpleasant little middle-aged man paired with the lovely young Eggar amounts to more than a stretch. Then there's Belle (Brown), his boisterously unfaithful wife. About five-minutes into the film and I was hoping someone would strangle her and rescue my ears. The movie's only mystery is why it took him so long.

The case itself, from books I've read, was pretty much open-and-shut against the doctor. Certainly he had reasons to commit the crime, which coincides with the movie. However, I suspect the element of doubt about his intentions that the movie introduces was an invention to add a provocative note to an otherwise unremarkable screenplay. Certainly, Crippen is presented as a somewhat sympathetic character by movie's end, which looks like a belated effort to humanize an otherwise one-note performance. Anyhow, the lead characters come across more like stereotypes than real people. And that along with the truly grim-faced production amounts to a forgettable movie experience.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the murder of Mrs. Crippen there has to be a question of intent. Whilst the film gives what seemingly is an accurate portrayal of the crime it seems to be biased towards the like of Filson Young who perceived Mrs Crippen as a wanton woman. The portrayal of the state of the house is accurate according to the reports in the papers though the over acting by the captain of the montrose and the failure of pleasance to grow a beard whilst evading the long arm of the law indicates poetic licence. Anyone who hasn't studied the background to the case will find it an OK watch but there are too many inaccuracies to the academics!

A Rather Dry and Low-Key Re-Telling of the Infamous Real-Life 1910 Case involving a Prominent Doctor, a Domineering and Battle-Axe of a Wife, an Attractive Mistress, and a Grisly Murder and Dismemberment. The "Good" Doctor was Tried and Hanged, but like so many of these Cases, the Jury, at least Publicly, is Still Out.

This Movie is a Well Cast, Talky, Claustrophobic Story that Attains a British, Stuffy, Tone and never Varies. It is Compelling, if not a Top-Notch, Thriller or Mystery Who-Done-It or Courtroom Drama. The Film just sort of Whispers its way from one Scene to Another with just Enough Intrigue to keep one Interested.

Nicholas Roeg's Cinematography is Crisp but Confined and it is the Performances that Grip this True Story and make it Involving with Samantha Eger and Donald Pleasence Standing Out, but Everyone Contributes to this Somewhat Creepy, Fireside, True-Crime, Turn of the Century Tale.

Poor "Dr. Crippen". As the character himself says, he's gone down in history as some kind of monster, not that far removed from Jack the Ripper. Robert Lynn's simple, sober film sets out to redress the balance. painting Crippen as more sinned against than sinner. Yes, he killed his wife and dismembered her corpse but did she drive him to it and was the killing itself an accident as he ultimately claims? There is no doubt as to which side Lynn's film is on.

It's an intelligent little picture if, in the end, not a particularly exciting one and it's very well played by Donald Pleasence, (Crippen), Samantha Eggar, (Ethel Le Neve, his uncomprehending mistress) and Coral Browne, (his shrew of a wife). The fine black and white cinematography is by Nicholas Roeg.