Dr. Crippen

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!

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.

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.

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.

I remember seeing Dr. Crippen in theaters way back in 1963 and have some vivid impressions. Seeing it again more than 50 years later confirmed those same impressions.

It's a simple but impressive work with three very sharp characterizations of the principals of one of Great Britain's most notorious murder cases/love triangle.

Donald Pleasance who was playing mostly villainous roles back in the day is the ill-fated Hawley Crippen, MD., one of London's most prominent physicians in Edwardian England. His success in his profession is not matched with a successful marriage.

But he's got certain joys on the side with young Ethel LeNeve, a typist in his office played by Samantha Eggar. He can hardly believe that this pretty young thing has fallen for a late forty something man who is hardly any kind romantic ideal.

But the performance that really riveted me back in the day was that of Coral Browne as Mrs. Crippen. I could not believe what an evil witch this woman was. You have to wonder what he saw in her back in the day to marry her. It was my impression of Browne that really made me remember the film, as it turns out exactly as I remember it. What a horrible human being Mrs. Crippen was.

The movie opens with the trial of Pleasence and Eggar with flashbacks to the events which include Browne's behavior, the affair of the two lovers and their escape to America which did not quite work out.

The questions about the Crippen case revolve around was her death deliberate or an accidental poisoning? Pleasence himself makes a confession of sorts, but the case is debated to this day by criminologists professional and amateur.

Pleasence and Eggar are fine in their roles and I consider this film to be one of Donald Pleasence's best performances. But Coral Browne got her best part in her career. You will remember her from this film most of all.