La Main sur le berceau

When people see horror movies that really effect them, they lock themselves away. Now someone can pick the lock. This is a fairly good movie that really hits home. I admit it is extremely similar to "Fatal Attraction" but I like this movie better. This time it seems Peyton is a little more evil than Alex and she has a better motive. Peyton is a nanny, she is to take care of Emily and Joe, she has different plans in mind. The acting is pretty good, the characters are well developed and it is a nice, cozy little horror you care rely on when nothing is on TV. I have to say in a way, it reminds me of "Rosemary's Baby". This time though, it is the one who rocks the cradle that is corrupt.

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle is the cornerstone of the trashy chick flick sub-genre. Many films since have used the same formula that makes this one a success, and most have failed. The reason this film is almost a resounding success has nothing to do with the plot or characters, however, it's the way that director Curtis Hanson handles it. The man who would go on to find acclaim with the astounding L.A. Confidential directs with the utmost still, and while there are few absolutely shocking sequences in this film; you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise due to the way that Hanson handles every scene. The movie leaves a lot of room for suspense, and every instant is made the best of by the director. The plot seems rather routine these days (and it probably did back in 1992), as we see a good all-American family hire the 'perfect' babysitter. She's not quite so perfect, however, and as we watch her pull down the family she's supposed to be helping from within, this becomes abundantly clear.

One thing that makes this film hard to like for some people is the fact that almost every motivation in the film is extremely unlikely. Would you hire a babysitter who apparently 'just knew' you wanted one? Wouldn't you become suspicious when everything started going wrong after you hired her? The list goes on, it really does, and it would seem that writer Amanda Silver just wanted to portray certain plots and didn't care too much how the characters fit into them. It's also obvious that the script was written by a woman throughout, with many of the sequences being more aimed towards women. None of these bad points really harm it though, because it's so well handled that it's hard not to just sit back and enjoy yourself. The centrepiece when it comes to the stagy set pieces is definitely the one with the greenhouse, which is both psychologically pleasing and suspense filled. The acting is just fine, with Rebecca De Mornay slotting into the deranged psycho role nicely. The best thing about this film for me is definitely the way that the babysitter manipulates the children and engineers situations to her advantage. This may be trash at the end of the day, but it's fiendishly done!

This is a chilling movie to spend a day or night with. Mrs. Moss (Rebecca De Mornay) seeks revenge on Claire Bartel (Annabella Sciorra) for reporting her husband Dr. Moss for sexual harassment, which lead to the doctor's suicide and precipitating Moss' miscarriage. She poses as nanny Peyton for the Bartel family, with the intention of raising hell.

Rebecca De Mornay gave an outrageously evil performance. The plot is solid and fast-paced; the only problem I have is the method Claire used to interview Peyton for the nanny position. She only asked Peyton, "How did you become to be a nanny?" leaving out relevant questions like health, personal background, prior jobs, resumes, way with kids, etc. Other than that, I enjoyed watching this movie and especially liked Julianne Moore's character, with her making smart, acid wit remarks. I especially liked her line "You have a Harvard education, make something up."

Overall, a great mystery movie with some good action mixed in.

Grade A

You have to hand it to the makers of THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE--once the story starts to unravel, you have to stay tuned to find out how this manipulative bitch will get her comeuppance. It's as simple as that. We know from the start that she has evil intentions, but we never know how evil they are until she starts a series of manipulative acts that demonstrate how cunning and remorseless she is.

REBECCA de MORNAY is so convincingly evil that you have to wonder why her career didn't skyrocket after this. It's a performance worthy of award consideration, but both she and the film itself have been largely forgotten. None of the supporting players, with the exception of JULIANNE MOORE, have become household names but they're all quite effective.

The ending may be somewhat predictable--and most welcome when it finally comes--but it's still stylishly done and a satisfying conclusion to a tale of household terror when a nanny's rage goes amok because of an incident in her past involving a woman whom she perceives as ruining her husband's life. Sure, it's been done before, but never quite so cunningly presented.

The phrase "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" is often thought to be a traditional proverb, but it is actually taken from a poem by the otherwise obscure 19th century American poet William Ross Wallace. This film is an example of that sub-genre of the thriller which I have come to think of as the "... from Hell" film. The basic plot of such films is that a stranger comes into the life of the hero. At first this stranger seems affable and friendly, but quickly reveals himself or herself to be a dangerous criminal or psychopath, and the hero finds that he is in danger. This basic concept is an old one, but it was given a new lease of life in the late 1980s and 1990s by the success of "Fatal Attraction" (or "One-Night Stand from Hell"). Other examples include "Pacific Heights" ("Tenant from Hell"), "Single White Female" ("Flatmate from Hell") and "Bad Influence", which can be summarised as "Bloke-You-Meet-In-A-Bar from Hell". Like "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle", this last was directed by Curtis Hanson.

Claire and Michael Bartel are the perfect all-American middle-class couple, living the American dream in an affluent district of Seattle. They already have a young daughter, Emma, and Claire is pregnant with their second child. And then their life is turned upside-down when Claire is sexually molested by her obstetrician, Dr. Mott. She reports him to the authorities, more women come forward to accuse him and he commits suicide to avoid trial. Although this development is clearly upsetting for Claire, she eventually recovers, safely gives birth to a boy and hires a young woman named Peyton Flanders as a nanny.

So was Claire right to accuse Dr Mott? This might seem like an absurd question; the answer, in both legal and moral terms, must be "yes". Had she not done so, he would have been free to continue preying on women. Yet, as T S Eliot wrote in "Murder in the Cathedral", "for every life and every act consequence of good and evil can be shown", and Claire's act, however morally justified, has evil consequences which go beyond Mott's suicide. His wife is pregnant, and the shock of his death causes her to go into premature labour and to lose her baby. She also loses her home because all her husband's assets are frozen to compensate his victims. This woman, of course, turns out to be Peyton, who has infiltrated Claire's home to pursue a scheme of revenge.

The "... from Hell" genre can sometimes descend into absurdity, "Bad Influence" being a particularly poor example, and this film has several weaknesses. Annabella Sciorra is not particularly memorable as Claire and Matt McCoy even less so as Michael. A pre-stardom Julianne Moore, here appearing in a supporting role, is memorable mainly for the bizarre way in which her character dies. Ernie Hudson, in an embarrassing performance as the Bartels' mentally handicapped handyman Solomon, is memorable for all the wrong reasons. He seems to have been written into the film as a sort of virtue signalling by proxy. (Aren't the Bartels wonderful to provide work for such an unfortunate person?) The plot starts off as tense and efficient but tends to go downhill towards the end.

What holds the film together is the central performance from Rebecca De Mornay as Peyton. It is a performance which operates on three levels. The first, and most superficial, level is that of the ideal nanny, someone both friendly and capable, which initially impresses the Bartels so much and persuades them to employ her. The second level is the one that the audience see, that of the cold, implacable avenger.

Underlying these two levels, however, is the third, that of the woman who believes herself to have been wronged but who lacks any social or legal form of redress. For the wrong Claire suffered at the hands of Dr Mott, she has clear legal remedies open to her via the courts and the medical authorities. But Peyton? For the wrongs she has suffered she has no remedy at all, not against Claire, not against her husband or his estate, not against society in general. The only advice anyone could give her would be to accept her misfortunes philosophically, which seems woefully inadequate. If Peyton is vindictive and evil, life has conspired to make her so. This is the central issue at the heart of this film, and it is a measure of De Mornay's performance that she allows us to see it. We might hate what Peyton does to the Bartel family. And yet, at the deepest level, we can understand the motives and the reasons behind her crimes. The complexity of her character lifts this film well above something like "Bad Influence", Hanson's other essay in the genre. 7/10