La nuit qui ne finit pas

"Endless Night" follows working-class freewheeling chauffeur Michael (Hywel Bennett) who falls in love with a billionaire heiress Ellie (Hayley Mills). The two marry, and build a large estate on property in the English countryside known as Gypsy's Acre, which is purported by locals to be cursed land. After Ellie's relative Greta (Britt Ekland) arrives to stay, a series of bizarre events unfold, including ominous encounters with an elderly gypsy woman who roams the property.

Based on the Agatha Christie novel, director Sidney Gilliat takes the meat of Christie's novel and puts unique twinges on it that are reminiscent of Hitchcock (Bernard Herrmann's spooky score understates this). The film is admittedly slow, especially in exposition, and there are few quote-unquote thrills to be had, but I found this film strangely compelling in spite of its odd pacing.

There is a consistent sense of unease that permeates nearly every scene, although it's difficult to put your finger on what is exactly the cause. The photography in the film is fantastic, capturing the rolling landscapes and the cloudy skies surrounding the manor; this is punctuated by subtle scares that come in the form of various figures lurking below on the hillsides or in the woods, almost like indistinct figures in a painting. The film is at times reminiscent of English Gothic in its aesthetics, even though the house itself is very much "retro '70s" in both style and furnishings.

Solid performances from Hywel Bennett and Hayley Mills really shine here, with Mills being especially memorable as a good natured girl who happens to be a billionaire ("world's sixth richest!"). Britt Ekland is also great as the stalwart and fawning relative— her performance really comes full circle in the finale, which provides her the bulk of the role's dynamics, and she handles it fabulously. The conclusion to the film is fairly routine by contemporary standards, although I can honestly say that I didn't see the plot twists coming, so props to Christie and the filmmakers' handling of the material— I was definitely had by the film.

Overall, "Endless Night" is an enjoyable and well-acted picture that seems to have been forgotten in time. It is too slow to qualify as a full-blooded thriller, but there are tinges of a British psychothriller here with some genuinely bizarre and eerie moments that stand out among effective cinematography and a disquieting score. In spite of the film's lackluster pacing, it is unexpectedly transfixing, and manages to hold one's attention until the head twisting finale. 7/10.

Around 45 years ago, when I was just a young lad, Hayley Mills was my favorite actress, and her 1962 film "In Search of the Castaways" was my favorite film, but between this and that, I don't think I've seen Hayley in anything since 1965's "That Darn Cat." How nice, then, to see her, the other night, at age 26 in the 1972 British film "Endless Night," and to realize what a nubile nymph my old flame had turned into later in life! In this adaptation of a 1967 Agatha Christie novel, Hayley plays Ellie Thomsen, the 6th richest girl in the world, who, after one date with pretty-boy chauffeur Michael (excellently portrayed by Welsh actor Hywel Bennett), elopes with him and builds his dream house in the Herts countryside. It is hard to figure out what words best describe "Endless Night." It is not really a horror movie, or a love story, or a thriller, but certainly does have elements of all these types. The picture IS remarkably atmospheric, in no small measure due to yet another wonderfully evocative score by the great Bernard Herrmann, and should manage to baffle most viewers who are trying to figure out just where the story line is going. Besides the fine work by its two leads, veterans George Sanders (here in one of his last roles, and playing what his character self-describes as a "desiccated old poop") and Lois Maxwell add sterling support, and even Britt Ekland turns in a convincing performance as Ellie's tutor/companion. Throw in some gorgeous scenery in the Herts and Positano countrysides, a surprise final quarter hour that manages to subvert everything we thought we knew, and two or three mild scares and you've got yourself one very interesting entertainment. Kudos, indeed, to writer/director Sidney Gilliat! I just hope that I'm not foolish enough to wait another 40 years before watching Hayley Mills in another picture. Perhaps it's time for me to finally check out Hayley and Hywel in 1968's "Twisted Nerve"...IF it ever gets released on DVD!

Endless Night is one of those movies that is hugely flawed, and yet it sticks in the mind unlike many more polished movies. Extremely slow paced for much of it's length and with several sequences that feel almost unnecessary, and even a few which just seem wierd, the film than delivers a true knock out of a twist which makes one realise how well the story has been constructed. For this reason, in some respect it's more satisfying to watch the second time even if one is no longer surprised, because one can notice all the little clues that have been put in ,and many of the previously mentioned unnecessary or wierd bits seem more essential. There is, though, one huge red herring that seems rather pointless.

This was the last of the Hywell Bennett/Hayley Mills collaborations for the Boulting Brothers and it is possibly their most interesting. Cast are all excellent ,including George Sanders in one of his final roles, and this is just as well since the film is indeed extremely talky. The alternately eerie and romantic Bernard Herrmann score is very memorable, although they could have made sure Mills' singing voice [obviously dubbed] sounded like her normal voice.

Many will be unsatisfied with this film ,but try it if you fancy a somewhat different kind of thriller, even it's only really a thriller in the final half hour!

How old was Agatha Christie when she wrote this? Pushing 70? She was pretty old, about my age, and that might account for the tragic emotional tonus of this story.

You wouldn't know this was a Christie story if it weren't so advertised. True, there are some of the usual themes -- British class distinctions, extreme wealth, jealousy, poison -- but they are submerged by a love story that seems at first to be going nowhere fast. The story lacks any of the novelist's usual subtle wit.

No point in spelling out the plot in any detail. A poor chauffeur-for-hire meets a blond sylph and they fall for each other. He discovers that she is the sixth richest girl in the world, her coming-of-age party having been covered in the newspapers, and he rejects her because, as he says, "I have my pride." (The audience may be forgiven for a few muffled chuckles at this point.) She dies under mysterious circumstances while riding. In these circles, "riding" is taken to mean horseback riding. He inherits the money. And things thereafter go a little berserk without there being a hell of a lot in the way of motivation.

The film is narrated by the young man, Michael (Bennett). At first his story seems perfectly reasonable and he is presented as a fellow of principle if not money. Hayley Mills is introduced in a filmy white dress, her long blonde hair wafted by the breeze as she capers alone in a meadow, slender limbs, radiantly healthy, and -- well, you know the type. Eminently edible. But Michael's story, though it begins normally enough, describing the approach-avoidance conflict from which he suffers, being in love with Mills and yet resenting her wealth, gradually changes.

He becomes less and less reasonable, and less nice. He's impolite to Greta (Eklund), Mills' tutor and possessive friend. Greta is often described as "bossy" but frankly her supposed obsession with power isn't well shown. There is just one argument -- a slightly bitchy one -- between Greta and Michael over the placement of a more than usually ugly statue of a cat. What evidence we see of her bossiness is rather weak tea. If they're going to have a domineering German nurse, couldn't the nurse and Hayley Mills have had a little consensual flagellation or something? The climax seems to come out of thin air. A sudden unmotivated reversal of the character of Michael.

It's not a bad movie though. Romance, yes, but a romance filled somehow with uneasiness and a gradually growing sense of dread. And when I first watched this and heard the first few notes of the score, I thought, "OMG, the composer is ripping off Bernard Hermann note for note." It turned out to BE Hermann, and a very effective Hermann at that, full of an eerie melancholy.

Maybe the reason it leaves a viewer feeling sad is that Christie seems to be stretching her talent so much trying to achieve "significance." And for the first time I'm aware of, we actually care about the character who dies, whereas in previous stories the victim was nothing more than a stereotype who, once gone, was forgotten. The death was only a pivot on which the remainder of the story could turn. Here, it's really too bad.

I just watched Julia McKenzie in the recent adaptation of the Christie novel, inserting Miss Marple where she was originally absent. I clicked on the IMDb and Amazon to learn more about the production and found that there had been a 1971 movie which hewed more closely to the original. A purchase of a used DVD gave me pleasure for my money. It's interesting to see how different script writers turned and twisted the basic story lines and how the movies surprised and shocked the viewer. I won't repeat the comments that have already been said on this forum about this '71 film, but I will emphasize the value of seeing the opening minutes again to pick up fat clues that might be missed on first viewing -- the footsteps heard in the Van Gogh museum and the statement of the mother later that her son had experienced something significant. The movie just seems to sail along making one wonder what the mystery is, what the crime was, until the revelations that suddenly come toward the end. Talk about the technique of the unreliable narrator in mystery stories! By the way, Jon Tuska in his great critical work THE DETECTIVE IN Hollywood casually dismisses this movie as not very good. He's wrong.