Dead of Night

I watched this again after a too-long gap of about six years. Were there many anthology films made during this time? "Flesh and Fantasy" (1943) comes to mind but "Dead of Night" is superior. The plot involves an architect who arrives at a country house for work, in a recurring nightmare, and he's terrified because he knows how this nightmare is going to end... At the house there are a number of guests and they soon fall into talking about their own horrifying supernatural tales. The stories of each of the guests range from semi-comical (the "golfing" episode was my least favorite, although there was one chilling moment even in that one) to the terrifying (the best of the lot, imho, is the 'ventriloquist' episode). Some have speculated that Rod Serling probably drew heavily on "Dead of Night" when writing a number of scripts for "The Twilight Zone" (as just one example, the scene where the dummy bites the hand of the ventriloquist is copied almost exactly in the TZ ep "The Dummy"). I'm not sure if this movie was a blockbuster at the time, but I think it was ahead of its time in terms of depth of concepts, in that there is more than meets the eye.

This is a great horror classic.I think what makes it so great is it contains something that we can all relate to. Many horror films are so far fetched, that we can't imagine anything like that happening to us. Today's horror pictures equate fear with blood, gore and shock value. But I think the things that scare us the most are the things that are subtle, which makes it more believable.

We've all had feelings of deja vu at some point - or had recurring dreams or similar experiences. This movie takes very ordinary objects we all have in our homes, like a mirror, and makes us think twice about them. And what child hasn't played hide and seek and worried that they might not get found by the others. But in this case, the girl gets lost in a secret area of a home only to discover something ghastly.

There is an expected lighthearted touch in the middle with the golfing story. I found the part where the ghost couldn't remember the hand-signal sequence to "disappear" to be absolutely hilarious. Some have commented they felt it was out of place. But I think the comedy relaxes you enough so that when the next scary sequence begins, it really comes as a shock.

I found shadings of Hitchcock, The Twilight Zone, and even Shyamalan ( the circular nature and premonition of SIGNS). I loved the circular nature in this tale especially. I found the cinematography to be intriguing, especially some of the close-ups. I think the "Christmas Party" sequence was especially beautifully filmed. And the creepy music score throughout does quite a good job of adding to and creating tension.

Any fan of classic Horror will love this little gem. This is one that will stick with you for some time (and make you double-check your mirrors). And remember...all it takes is a weekend in the country to cure those recurring nightmares!! HAPPY DREAMS!

I remember being bowled over as a kid when I first saw this classic. I know now that American cinema of the time simply wouldn't risk confusing an audience with such a complex (stunning) wrap-around and a string of separate stories. Then too, that was before humanoid dummies became a horror cliché, and so the effect was doubly jarring. Nonetheless, I'm still astonished at how well Redgrave shades his stages of madness, certainly Oscar worthy in some universe. That episode may be the creepiest and most difficult to figure out in the whole horror genre.

But what really amazes me now is how such a completely collaborative effort could have turned out so well—11 writers, 4 directors, and a large cast of principals. Usually collaborative efforts amount to less than the whole; this one, however, is considerably greater than the whole. After so many comments, there's no need to echo the obvious, except to point out that true horror depends on the psychological and in no way depends on buckets of blood. In my book, the movie's as good now as it was 60-years ago.

I was fortunate enough to see this movie the way it was meant to

be seen: I was about 13 and my brother was 11. We were

supposed to go to bed, but we snuck and watched this movie. We

were also fortunate enough to see it on PBS (of all places!) uncut,

without commercial interruption. Perhaps, the fear of being caught

by our parents added to the experience. We sat by the flickering

light of the TV set (on low volume) in the dark. Needless to say, by

the end of the movie we thought our heads would explode with

fear. I thought my eyes would bulge out of my sockets. It was a

definitive bonding experience for me and my brother. Strange that

fear should be so relished! Up to this day, when posed with the

question, "You wouldn't do that?" Our response is in that devilish

high-pitched voice, "Wouldn't I? WOULDN'T I??" Thanks to Anchor

Bay putting out the dvd double feature of Dead of Night with Queen

of Spades (also excellent!), I have just watched it again and that

old friend fear comes right back. Hugo Fitch lives on!

Dead of Night is responsible for so many films made in the horror genre, because it was the first that took a huge gamble and pieced several unconnected stories together within a narrative that loosely keeps them together. Tales From The Crypt, Vault of Horror, Tales That Witness Madness, The House That Dripped Blood, Torture Garden, The Monster Club, Creepshow, Tales From the Darkside: the Movie are just a few of the films that owe part of their existence to this little British film. The frame story details how a man goes to the country for a weekend only to say he has been there before and met the people there before in his recurring dream. He is thrust into a discussion between those that believe in his dream and one lone doctor(psychiatrist) who seems able to explain all phenomena in a scientific way. Each of the guests then in turn tells a story about their brush with the supernatural. Most of the stories are very inventive(although by modern standards cliched as they have been copied many times)and entertaining. Two of the stories really stand-out. The first is about a mirror that shows you a different room as you look into it, and the other about a ventriloquist with a split personality. The other stories are good, and one is humorous(perhaps out of place but fun nonetheless). Acting is solid throughout with Mervyn Johns as the man subjected to the same dream over and over again. Richard Valk excels as the doctor, and Michael Redgrave is outstanding as the man able to give the gift of speech to a "dummy." Also of interest is the pairing of Basil Radford and Naughton Wayne form Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes. They DO compliment each other so very nicely. A wonderful, eerie film.