Terreur des morts vivants

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.

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.

People who complain about the predictability of this film miss the quality. Just as with a sonnet you can expect a number of lines and syllables, and some occasional tweaking of the language to fit, so you can expect style and structure fitting a well rehearsed pattern. You have the gothic mansion, a former monastery, with secret doors and passages, an organ playing in the night (no one operating the bellows) and a detached but eerie chapel. The place is a guest house/ private house with a staff including Irene Handel as kitchen maid, Kathleen Harrison as the house maid playing the sorts of parts they played for decades. There is a lost £300,000 in stolen gold, two gaolbirds who, after ten years, waaant to recover it, and get the organiser of the gang who betrayed them. Star turns are Alistair Sim as a crook disguised as a dotty vicar, and James Bond's 'M' as a serial drunk. A number of murders and the melodramatic denouement complete the early 20th century stage play, transferred to film. The style of acting reminds us that several of the performers were already on stage when Victoria died, and the elocution and style were necessary to project across large audiences before sound films came along. The formula for a stage play is all there, including the expected 'crisis'. Worth a watch.

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.

I'm spending a lot of time with 1930's mysteries. This one just isn't worth your time. It has some interesting plot features: the double-blind villain and a double-blind detective. But it has some tedious elements: the spooky mansion with secret doors, the hooded villain, carefully shrouded until the end, too much talk among and to "inspectors," and the not very funny comic relief in the biddy who thinks she knows all. And it spends an inordinate percentage of our patience on the setup and prior events.

You'll guess all the secrets as soon as they are posed.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.