Miedo súbito

"Sudden fear" is everything a good thriller should be.An inventive use of the recorder (an antique today!);The "revenge is a dish best eaten cold" subject masterfully treated;The "flashforwards" in the conditional tense -the "accidents" ,"Irene's schedule"-;the things which seem banal and which play a prominent part in the story:the clock,the wind-up toy,the mirror,all contributes to building a film full of suspense .The three leads ,Joan Crawford , a wealthy lady getting old and thinking she 's found true love,Jack Palance ,not the romantic lead of her play but a disturbing character ,and Gloria Grahame at her bitchiest are terrific.

Like this?Try these.......

"Sorry wrong number" Anatole Litvak 1948

"Dial M for Murder" Alfred Hitchcock 1954

"Les Diaboliques" Henri Georges Clouzot 1955

"Sleep my love" Douglas Sirk 1948

There are some very good features to this thriller that make up for its occasional flaws. Joan Crawford is very good in a role that gives her a chance to do a lot of different things, and the story builds up suspense effectively, to the point where you share in the anxiety and fear of her character. Those strengths make up for the implausible and occasionally unsatisfying plot turns.

Crawford's role gives her a chance to start off as a supremely confident, comfortable playwright, whose dream world is then transformed into a nightmare. She does quite a convincing job of taking her character through the joys, fears, and other turns that she experiences. It is largely thanks to her performance that the suspense build-up works especially well. By the time that the lengthy cat-and-mouse game in the last half of the movie begins, you are really thinking and feeling along with her. The crisis is built up skillfully, though again at the cost of some credibility.

This works very well the first time you see it. Watching it over again, it is easier to see through the less credible plot devices and other small flaws. But none of the flaws detract from Crawford's fine leading performance. Overall, it's a pretty good thriller and certainly well worth seeing once.

Joan Crawford is a playwright who marries Jack Palance and then realizes he is planning to kill her. The formula works this time, thanks largely to the impressive acting of both Crawford and her leading man, Jack Palance. Gloria Grahame is the "other woman" (as usual) and plays an important part in the plot twist that provides a surprise ending.

Nail biting suspense, this is a film noirish kind of thriller that goes into full gear once Crawford learns her marriage is a mistake. Both Joan and Bette Davis (real-life rivals) were nominated for Best Actress Oscars when this was released (Davis for 'The Star') but they both lost to Shirley Booth (for 'Come Back, Little Sheba').

A good, crisp, no-nonsense thriller that showed us how good Jack Palance was in sinister roles.

Well, close enough. At least the title rhymes.

Joan Crawford is playwright Myra Hudson. She has great independent wealth, but she likes the satisfaction of creating her written works and the appreciation and accolades that it brings her. Lester Blaine (Jack Palance) is auditioning for the lead in one of her plays when Myra uses her veto power because she just doesn't see him as the romantic type. Lester doesn't take this too well, and tells her off.

Later, on her way back to San Francisco, she sees Lester on the train home and ironically he woos her in a whirlwind courtship. Now there is something that happens before they get married that lets you know that Lester is manipulating her, but you can't be sure if it is because he truly loves her and wants her to feel like she is losing him or he just wants to marry a rich woman. It's door number two.

So the two have a romantic honeymoon, and Myra thinks everything is fine. For that matter, so does the audience. But a girl (Gloria Grahame as Irene) that Lester knew before he met Myra shows up at a party of Myra's as a date of one of her lawyers, Junior Kearney. It can't be a good sign when the perennial bad girl of the noirs shows up accidentally on purpose with Mannix as her date. If you are under sixty you likely have no idea who Mannix is, but I digress.

So it turns out Lester was a con man pre-Myra, but it looks like he is OK with just being the kept husband of a rich wife until Irene shows up looking for a piece of the action. The two resume their affair and soon they are planning to kill Myra.

How does Myra find this out? There is a clever plot device introduced earlier in the film that leaves no doubt as to what is going on in Myra's mind. But she is the only person who is witness to it. The two plan to kill her sometime during the next three days - that is when she is signing a new will. She is naturally revolted and terrified at what Lester is up to, but she is also a playwright, and so she conceives a cunning plan to murder the murderers first. So why didn't she just use her great wealth to, I dunno, take the train to Seattle and then contact her lawyer and divorce the guy? I guess because there would be no film?

Actually Myra's plan has a couple of huge plot holes in it which I won't divulge. But among the more long running of the plot holes is that if New York is the city that never sleeps, then in 1952, San Francisco is the city that is fast asleep at 10PM and also everybody is stone deaf after sundown. Mayberry didn't roll up their sidewalks as tight as Frisco in this film. If you want to see what I mean, watch and find out. The film is neatly divided into two parts. The part before Myra finds out what is going on and is chuck full of dialogue - the first 45 minutes. And then the last 45 minutes where Myra has discovered what is going on and is trying to keep from being killed. The second half is practically a silent film, but the tension never lets up.

There is really some good acting going on in this film, especially by leads Crawford and Palance. Very subtle in that you can tell what they are thinking by just their facial expressions and body language in many cases. Joan Crawford was unlucky to be tied to MGM for 17 years and only be free when MGM fired her in 1942. The studio really did put her in some dreck especially in the late 30s and then blamed her when things didn't pan out. Her1940s and 1950s work was in much better quality films and this is one of them. I highly recommend it.

In the film Jack Palance tells a woman during an embrace, "I could break your bones." And he means it romantically! That probably sums up the odd, entertaining, and off-beat nature of this movie. There is so much "eye-action" from Joan in this one that it's almost funny. Actually it is funny. Though Sudden Fear is not a comedy, it has moments that are truly hysterical in a "did they really just say that?" kind of way. Watch for the moments when Joan responds to overheard conversations, personal scheming, (or the voices in her head)with nothing but wide-eyed reaction shots. Joan is also a tremendously sympathetic character more so than in almost any other Crawford film I've ever seen (and I've seen almost all of them). I caught this film on TV one night and was utterly surprised at how entertaining it was. Not that I had low expectations but Sudden Fear wasn't a film I'd ever heard of. It was proof that there are lots of dark diamonds hidden out there. We all know about the "top 100" lists and the legendary films on them but there are gems worth watching that never got the attention they should have. I watched from beginning to end not knowing what to expect. Truly thrilling in places and just plain classic Crawford. Watch for the moment when Joan embraces her love interest Palance and asks, "I was just wondering what I'd done to deserve you."