Terreur des morts vivants

TheSTORY-1.25

Right from the opening, the double-cross and the twists start to affect our criminal anti-heroes. After stealing a fortune in gold the architect of the whole plan sets up his gang of reprobates to take the fall, while he disappears with the ill-gotten gains. Two are imprisoned for ten years. As the world passes them by outside of their cells they can only dream of the gold and their revenge. The third gang-member makes a getaway but spends the rest of the time searching for the loot and the double-crosser.

This is the section where the film could have been made stronger. Had we seen a little of the search this would have anchored the story more firmly in the minds of the audience. However, we skip through the ten years and then straight into the thick of things. Unfortunately, this doesn't give us time to relate to the crooks, who I assume we are meant to be rooting for. But thanks to clever casting this is made nearly unnecessary. The thing I don't like though is the mastermind. When you see the reveal you'll probably think, how could he have pulled it off? and, why? The answers make little sense in context to the ending.

theDIRECTION

Richard Bird is a good director. There are some nice shots and scenes. Bird is of the "Frame Your Cast Perfectly" class. In practically every shot the actors and actresses working in the scene are perfectly centred. This works well in this style of film.

Having said that the lack of variety does hinder the film slightly. Some artistic shooting would have enhanced the viewing for the audience, as well as setting a moodier atmosphere, of which there's very little. This would have worked especially well in the climax had Bird used a few more shadows.

theTEMPO-1

Bird stays at the same pace as he does filming style. It's not a bad thing as this average speed works well with this style of filming - tell it as it's told. But, once again, variety would have helped to strengthen the story.

theACTING-0.75

This is where the clever casting works. Having superb actors such as Alastair Simm, Henry Oscar, and Bernard Lee raises the film. The shame is the rest of the cast aren't up to their calibre. The worst being the leading lady who is so wooden she chops down all the good work the others have done.

theGRATIFICATION

Though this a below-average thriller that is lacking in atmosphere and a well-structured story, I found myself enjoying the movie. This was down to the aforementioned actors and the climax. I won't watch this again, but I am glad I watched it.

If this is on the telly and you've got nothing else to watch, then you could do worse than give it a look-see. Especially if you're and Alastair Sim fan or like old black and white thrillers.

theSCORE-4.75

Check out my thriller list-come-chart, The Game Is Afoot, to see where this film ranks.

The Terror (1938)

** (out of 4)

Three thieves rob a shipment of gold and two of them are sent to prison for a decade. After the two are released they travel to a creepy old house to track down the man who turned them in and hope to find some of the treasure.

Edgar Wallace wrote the play that this here is based on. There are a couple interesting things in THE TERROR but sadly it's another British film that has way too much talk and boring talk at that. The main reason most people are going to want to watch this is because of the actors who appear here. You've got Bernard Lee from James Bond fame playing a drunk and Alastair Sim playing one of the convicts. Sherlock Holmes fans will also note Arthur Wontner in the cast.

The actual story is decent but there's no question that this "old dark house" movie just runs way too slow for its own good and even at just 70 minutes it feels rather long. It doesn't help that the majority of the dialogue is just downright boring and there's really no energy from the direction. The cast and genre might attract some to THE TERROR but there's certainly much better out there.

As to whom can roll their eyes most.This is a typical Edgar Eallace thriller with a rather predictable plot and climax.A good cast helps make this entertaining.

This is what I expect is a typical Edgar Wallace plot with its old house (former Abbey) replete with secret passageways, a hooded stranger and things that go bump in the night. Three crooks steal a fortune in gold coins; one of the thieves named O'Shea rats on the other two – "Soapy" Marx played by Sim and Joe Connor (Henry Oscar). Marx and Connor are sent to prison for ten years and vow to get even with O'Shea. It is now ten years later and the scene shifts to a former Abbey turned into a boardinghouse by its owner, Colonel Redmayne (Arthur Wontner). The thing is Redmayne keeps turning away potential boarders. So there are only three – a ditsy Mrs. Elvery who claims to be "psychic" and her unattractive daughter and a Mr. Goodman. Unexpectedly, Redmayne's daughter returns home after a long absence. The movie is slow slogging for the next several minutes as the "psychic" prattles on about noises and seeing a hooded creature (also seen by the daughter). Then murders start happening…. As annoying as Mrs. Elvery is, she does have a couple of good lines. At one point she tells the Detective that she will find out the truth even if it's the death of her. She pauses and then says something like "Oh, I wish I hadn't said that." The real kudos in this movie go to Sim with his daffy cleric routine and Lee with his comic drunk routine. Both actors were a delight to watch and they made the movie one to watch again.

Three men steal £300,000 in gold by staging a robbery. Two of them are caught and sentenced to 10 years each in prison while the criminal mastermind escapes with the fortune. Upon their release both men seek their share. From the pen of Edgar Wallace this is a crime thriller/drama but with added horror elements, the latter being what attracted me to watching it. Much of the film takes place at creaky Monk's Hall Priory. There is a monks tomb in the grounds, at night organ music can be heard and a ghostly, hooded figure seen. Insanity also plays a part. It is rather delightfully acted and fans of 1930's movies won't be disappointed. Through in some humour, a decent final reveal and a dash of romance and you get a fairly enjoyable 70 minutes.