उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Well, close enough. At least the title rhymes.

Joan Crawford is playwright Myra Hudson. She has great independent wealth, but she likes the satisfaction of creating her written works and the appreciation and accolades that it brings her. Lester Blaine (Jack Palance) is auditioning for the lead in one of her plays when Myra uses her veto power because she just doesn't see him as the romantic type. Lester doesn't take this too well, and tells her off.

Later, on her way back to San Francisco, she sees Lester on the train home and ironically he woos her in a whirlwind courtship. Now there is something that happens before they get married that lets you know that Lester is manipulating her, but you can't be sure if it is because he truly loves her and wants her to feel like she is losing him or he just wants to marry a rich woman. It's door number two.

So the two have a romantic honeymoon, and Myra thinks everything is fine. For that matter, so does the audience. But a girl (Gloria Grahame as Irene) that Lester knew before he met Myra shows up at a party of Myra's as a date of one of her lawyers, Junior Kearney. It can't be a good sign when the perennial bad girl of the noirs shows up accidentally on purpose with Mannix as her date. If you are under sixty you likely have no idea who Mannix is, but I digress.

So it turns out Lester was a con man pre-Myra, but it looks like he is OK with just being the kept husband of a rich wife until Irene shows up looking for a piece of the action. The two resume their affair and soon they are planning to kill Myra.

How does Myra find this out? There is a clever plot device introduced earlier in the film that leaves no doubt as to what is going on in Myra's mind. But she is the only person who is witness to it. The two plan to kill her sometime during the next three days - that is when she is signing a new will. She is naturally revolted and terrified at what Lester is up to, but she is also a playwright, and so she conceives a cunning plan to murder the murderers first. So why didn't she just use her great wealth to, I dunno, take the train to Seattle and then contact her lawyer and divorce the guy? I guess because there would be no film?

Actually Myra's plan has a couple of huge plot holes in it which I won't divulge. But among the more long running of the plot holes is that if New York is the city that never sleeps, then in 1952, San Francisco is the city that is fast asleep at 10PM and also everybody is stone deaf after sundown. Mayberry didn't roll up their sidewalks as tight as Frisco in this film. If you want to see what I mean, watch and find out. The film is neatly divided into two parts. The part before Myra finds out what is going on and is chuck full of dialogue - the first 45 minutes. And then the last 45 minutes where Myra has discovered what is going on and is trying to keep from being killed. The second half is practically a silent film, but the tension never lets up.

There is really some good acting going on in this film, especially by leads Crawford and Palance. Very subtle in that you can tell what they are thinking by just their facial expressions and body language in many cases. Joan Crawford was unlucky to be tied to MGM for 17 years and only be free when MGM fired her in 1942. The studio really did put her in some dreck especially in the late 30s and then blamed her when things didn't pan out. Her1940s and 1950s work was in much better quality films and this is one of them. I highly recommend it.

It seems that the first impressions are really the most lasting. No matter how seriously we take that into account, a slightly similar conclusion could arise at the encounter of a playwright Myra Hudson (Joan Crawford) with an actor she auditions. Lester Blaine (Jack Palance) does not appear to be HER idea of a romantic leading man, "he just looks romantic but does not sound so." What is more, his notion about an oil painting of Casanova leaves confusing riddle within her mind and yet...she will soon stand before the dilemma to make up her mind and stick to it no matter what price she is going to pay.

Like Joan Crawford did not, initially, prefer Jack Palance as her leading man in the motion picture, Myra Hudson did not fancy Lester. Changing her mind, however, occurs inevitable. Myra soon utters romantically "Without you I have nothing!" And yet, is the truth about him disguised behind a romantic smile? Will sudden fear occur to disillusion Myra and rescue her from sudden murder?

When I have recently viewed this wonderful film noir, I felt it was the right time because I had already got to know the greatest films of the genre, not superior ones but similar ones. What I mean by that are the films directed by the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. When seeing SUDDEN FEAR, you had better be acquainted with some of Hitchcock's best films because then, you may realize that SUDDEN FEAR has so much in common with the gem of noir. It's Hitchcock's fertile theme and Miller's stylish bravura. From the characters, objects, undertones, certain details, doom-filled atmosphere to the unique charm of San Francisco and the utterance that seems to be the core of Hitchcock's suspense: "This place is so perfect for an accident." Let me broaden some aspects of David Miller's picture which make us see it as one of the greatest representatives of its genre in the purest form.

The TORMENTED LEADING CHARACTER, Myra Hudson played brilliantly by Joan Crawford, highlights something truly ahead of its time. As an executive producer of SUDDEN FEAR, Ms Crawford allows viewers to get into her inner psyche and provokes a progressive approach: we psychoanalyze her as a character! Nothing like a linear storytelling, forget it! Yet, something that talks about a psychological world. We psychoanalyze her 'professional eye' in the theater scene, her coldness melted on a train at the match game that becomes as mysterious as the manipulative flirts, her 'blind confidence' in wedding Lester, the seeds of doubt that are being slowly planted from the moment he does not answer her phone. As a matter of fact, this is a purely genius scene when viewers-observers, unlike Myra herself, are granted a signal: "something is wrong about him." As a result, we differ from Myra, we feel suspicion earlier than her and, consequently, wait for her disillusion. When the unbelievable shock comes in her library and she confronts the reality, her behavior is utterly unpredictable: she does not resort to a state of blending fantasy with reality but remains cold and disguised both to us and to the people around her. In that respect, isn't she a typical Hitchcock's leading lady? Apart from one difference - she is not a blonde. Nominated for Oscar, Joan Crawford offers us a pure masterwork of acting.

JACK PALANCE, who replaces Ms Crawford's initial wish of casting Marlon Brando or Clark Gable, is truly surprising as a leading man. The fact we are not used to him in such a highlighted performance that combines a doe-eyed romanticist with a secret fox makes the effect even more memorable. An important fact here to state is that Lester is equally appealing in the psychoanalyzing approach as Myra. His pretense at the beginning, his patronizing behavior on the train, his look at hands, and his gradual 'promotion' in Myra's eyes beautifully depict an ambitious type. Later, his vitality and efforts are, somehow, focused on two women: Myra and Irene. When Myra begins to be his object of wealth's desire, Irene becomes his object of lust's desire. She is a 'blonde of lust.' Their scheme is a realization of their sexuality - something very Hitchcock-like where crime goes with sex. "Kiss me hard..." Note the love scene at the fireplace in the summerhouse and the way it is shot. Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor, Jack Palance appears to give a performance beyond our expectations.

Another great aspect that makes the genre so engrossing and absorbing is the use of objects that manipulate our perceptions and the cinematography that builds the atmosphere. Staircase scenes that purely recall STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and many great noir genres. And the objects including the clock that reveals heartbeat, the phone that disturbs the chain of emotions and rises fear, and, above all, the DICTATING MACHINE that becomes, in a way, another character of the story. The nightmarish fantasy seems to recall SPELLBOUND. The atmosphere is immensely powerful as the secret is partly revealed by the dictating machine ("I know a way") and Myra's reaction being one of the most natural and daring we can encounter. Mind you the realism (she vomits and we deduce it). Charles Lang's cinematography reaches the climax in the shots of interiors where everything seems to be overwhelmed by torments: images are combined with various sounds from the clock ticking to screaming and morose silence.

For a number of reasons, SUDDEN FEAR is a surprisingly modern entertainment, its age makes it a unique achievement on its own and the one that will never be duplicated thanks to top rate performances, haunting cinematography, plenty of daring ideas. A really ambitious and insightful production. One and only in its riveting entertainment!

In the film Jack Palance tells a woman during an embrace, "I could break your bones." And he means it romantically! That probably sums up the odd, entertaining, and off-beat nature of this movie. There is so much "eye-action" from Joan in this one that it's almost funny. Actually it is funny. Though Sudden Fear is not a comedy, it has moments that are truly hysterical in a "did they really just say that?" kind of way. Watch for the moments when Joan responds to overheard conversations, personal scheming, (or the voices in her head)with nothing but wide-eyed reaction shots. Joan is also a tremendously sympathetic character more so than in almost any other Crawford film I've ever seen (and I've seen almost all of them). I caught this film on TV one night and was utterly surprised at how entertaining it was. Not that I had low expectations but Sudden Fear wasn't a film I'd ever heard of. It was proof that there are lots of dark diamonds hidden out there. We all know about the "top 100" lists and the legendary films on them but there are gems worth watching that never got the attention they should have. I watched from beginning to end not knowing what to expect. Truly thrilling in places and just plain classic Crawford. Watch for the moment when Joan embraces her love interest Palance and asks, "I was just wondering what I'd done to deserve you."

Many other posts here comment usefully on the acting in this under-appreciated but amazing film--one of the very best films noir. Little has been written about it and it's the kind of film one used to learn about through word of mouth and coincidence though sites like this make that easier now.

But what really turns my crank about this film is its brilliant combination of cinematography and sound. In many ways this is a silent film and Crawford, coming of age during the silent era, reprises her silent self masterfully during the final third of the film. Silent films were never fully 'silent'--they were accompanied by music. In this film, the musical score complements the visual action but sound effects increasingly become front and center as the film progresses, completely overtaking dialog toward the end. The sound of the wind-up dog as it walks across the carpet, a walk shot so tightly that we see the weave of the rug the dog walks on and the thread in the rug that catches its paw just in time. The sound of the Dictaphone machine (a new technology at the time) and the way the recording of Irene Neves' (Gloria Grahame's) disembodied, mechanical voice repeats "I know a place" over and over (several minutes actually) are crucial to the suspense of this film. The final third of the film is virtually dialog-free--instead, through an inspired use of flash forwards we enter a truly cinematic space of the fantastic, the paranoid and, finally, the sublime. Joan walks alone into the morning light. The silent section of the film, the ticking clock and its Poe-like pendulum telegraph her moral ambiguity. See this film--it's a unique, an early 1950s reprise on the silent cinema and how to communicate to an audience through visuals and sound effects. It's widely available on DVD and the transfer is excellent.

This is a real edge-of-your-seat nail-biter. David Miller did a terrific job of directing this one, and the cinematography is spectacular by Charles Lang. Some of the shots are as inspired as anything ever seen in Hollywood, such as one in Joan Crawford's library where upon hearing an inadvertent recording made on her dictaphone, she gradually shrinks back in horror against the far wall, until she becomes nearly a dot in the distance. That shot is a real triumph of cinematic inspiration. Much is accomplished with a clock and its pendulum, with the star-shaped pendulum at one point shown in shadow swinging across her chest as she gets more and more anxious. None of this is overdone, but is all subtle and effective. Joan Crawford has us all spellbound with her magnificent performance. She throws vanity to the winds, and is not afraid to show her character as someone in the round, complete with cowardice, foolishness, and even extreme stupidity, combined with cunning, intelligence, charm and inspiration. Rarely has a woman been shown so soaked in sweat with sheer terror, and she must have stepped straight out of the shower for each of those shots. When we aren't staring at her incredulous, we notice that Jack Palance is highly effective, and then we have the delectable treat of Gloria Grahame turning up. Which true cineaste does not adore Gloria Grahame? She herself probably never knew what all the fuss was about, regarding herself no doubt as an ordinary girl. But Gloria Grahame was far from ordinary. She had that indefinable something plus a lot of other somethings, which for reasons which are deeply mysterious and impossible to explain leave many people like myself in a state of entranced wonder. What was it about her? No matter how many times we watch her we will never know, all we can say is there will never be another one. This film is a real humdinger.

"Sudden fear" is everything a good thriller should be.An inventive use of the recorder (an antique today!);The "revenge is a dish best eaten cold" subject masterfully treated;The "flashforwards" in the conditional tense -the "accidents" ,"Irene's schedule"-;the things which seem banal and which play a prominent part in the story:the clock,the wind-up toy,the mirror,all contributes to building a film full of suspense .The three leads ,Joan Crawford , a wealthy lady getting old and thinking she 's found true love,Jack Palance ,not the romantic lead of her play but a disturbing character ,and Gloria Grahame at her bitchiest are terrific.

Like this?Try these.......

"Sorry wrong number" Anatole Litvak 1948

"Dial M for Murder" Alfred Hitchcock 1954

"Les Diaboliques" Henri Georges Clouzot 1955

"Sleep my love" Douglas Sirk 1948

Joan Crawford is an heiress and a famous playwright. During rehearsals, she insists that Jack Palance be fired: It's not that he isn't a good actor. He just doesn't have the matinée idol looks, she maintains. Before we know it, the play has been successfully launched and she is on a train back to San Francisco. Who should kind of turn up on this train but Palance? He and Crawford play poker and she falls in love with him. OK, it seems: He wasn't right for a Broadway Don Juan. But for an unmarried lady of a certain age like her, he has just what it takes.

The fact that Crawford and Palance (the actors) have no chemistry isn't a problem. In a way, it works in the movie's favor. We know he hasn't forgotten the humiliation she put him through. We know she thought him not so hot to begin with.

Gloria Graham is used well as his girlfriend. They're kind of rough with each other too. He speaks of breaking all her bones, rather casually and almost endearingly.

Once Crawford and Palance have married, the suspense heats up. It's a highly suspenseful film -- well written and well directed. Palance is nimble in his role and Crawford is at her very best too. My problem with it is that I've seen it a few times and the print has never been good, which is a problem in the dark scenes toward the end.

But compare this with other movies Crawford was making at around the same time. "Torch Song" is one of the most outrageously ludicrous star vehicles of all time. "Queen Bee" is pretty funny, too -- unintentionally, of course. "Female on the Beach" ... In all the others, men come from miles to fall at Joan's feet. (Speaking of feet, "Sudden Fear" seems, for whatever reason to have more than a usual number of close-ups of its stars stockinged feet and her shoes.) No one has ever seen anyone so beautiful as Crawford in these movies. Maybe this made sense at the time but it doesn't now. She was near 50. Inthose days, this was like being near 65 for a woman.

In "Sudden Fear," she is an old maid. No one comments on her appearance one way or another. She is rich and successful but it doesn't seem that we're meant to view her as a great beauty. What we have instead is a beautiful movie -- quite possibly her best.

Sudden Fear (1952)

Such a dark and dramatic, noir-styled surprise for me. Joan Crawford as the rich daughter and talented playwright is terrific, avoiding the camp of later years and really playing a complex, emotional role perfectly. I didn't even notice that Gloria Grahame was in it, and when she shows up I knew there was going to be a thrill--she balances Crawford, and gives the third main actor, Jack Palance, a way to bounce back and forth. And Palance, as a seeming actor/lover, is two-sided and then some, and really gives the part depth. He's so believably likably it's chilling.

Add to this some of the darkest, and most shadowy, night photography you've seen, and a hard hitting orchestral score, and fast editing up and down the streets of San Francisco, and you've got a gem. It's an amazing, over-the-top movie, but it makes sense, and the last shot of Joan Crawford at night (I'll say no more) is astonishing for its emotional shifts. Yes, there is Mildred Pierce and countless other great Crawford films, but for her performance alone you have to see this one. Director David Miller I've never heard of and may never hear of again judging by his film history, but he pulls off a stylish, intense masterpiece. It's filled with common types and common twists, but a lot of them, and well done, well done.

Noir starring Joan Crawford who kicks ass in it. That last scene is so thrilling. The ending ain't all that but other things are. Joan is a rich playwright who marries the actor she has booted from the casting. When she inadvertently finds out he plots to kill her, through cutting edge technology, about which there is a delightful scene, the race is on.

If anyone has any doubt about Joan Crawford's greatness as an actor, then watch this movie. Her performance is sensational as the playwright who accidentally finds out that she is being set up. The story is compelling and conveys the sense of foreboding and suspense which grabs and keeps the audience's attention. Jack Palance gives a strong and convincing performance as a conman who marries Ms. Crawford. He is suave, urbane and sinister. Yet this movie is a Joan Crawford showcase. She is the center of the story and she succeeds in making this movie a most effective work of cinematic art. The cinematography is outstanding; it captures and conveys the sense of terror as the audience is taken on an emotional roller coaster ride toward a final, exciting conclusion.

The wealthy playwright Myra Hudson (Joan Crawford) is the heiress of a great fortune. However she works and is donating part of her inheritance to foundations. When she watches the rehearsal of her play, she asks the director to replace the lead actor Lester Blaine (Jack Palance) that she believes is not adequate for the lead role. When she returns home, she meets Blane in the same train and they travel together. They stop in Chicago and soon Myra is seduced by him. They get married and live at Myra's home in San Francisco. Myra summons her lawyer Steve Kearney (Bruce Bennett) to change her will and transfer her fortune and properties to her beloved husband. She uses her Dictaphone to record the changes to be done in her will. However Steve will travel with his son Junior Kearney (Touch Conners) to Sacramento and they leave the room. Then Blaine and Junior's girlfriend Irene Neves (Gloria Grahame), who is his lover, come to the room to plot a scheme to kill Myra so that he will be the heir of her fortune. On the next morning, Myra learns that she has forgotten her Dictaphone on and when she will proceed to dictate her new will, she hears the conversation of her husband with Irene. What will she do now that she knows what are Blaine's real feelings and intention?

"Sudden Fear" is a suspenseful film-noir with excellent first half. The story of a wealthy spinster seduced by a crook is great until the moment that the lead character learns that he husband and his mistress are plotting to murder her. Her plan to save her life and get rid of them is also great. However her clumsy and moralist attitudes are terrible and reduces what could have been a little masterpiece to a good film-noir only. Joan Crawford has another magnificent performance. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Precipícios d'Alma" ("Precipices of the Soul")

A full-fledged star vehicle for Ms. Crawford, in this film-noir tale, she plays Myra Hudson, a rich Broadway playwright-spinster, who intuitively vetoes an actor Lester Blaine's (Palance) audition for her newest play, since his unusual look doesn't seem to be well qualified for a romantic role, which prompts Lester's chagrin and he rebukes that Myra is wrong for her impetuous decision.

Some days later, on the train back to her home in San Francisco after the play turns out to be a hit, Myra encounters Lester, out of courtesy and to manifest there is no hard feelings, they bury the hatchet and Lester proves to her that he in fact is a virtuoso romantic suitor for her despite the age difference, and she is significantly besotted, the two tie the knot afterwards, which erects a perfect hotbed for the ensuing murder plan.

There is an ulterior motive in Lester's agenda from his very first move, when his old flame, a sensual siren Irene Neves (Grahame) arrives uninvited, the two scheme together to murder Myra after knowing that the latter will donate the bulk of her fortune to a foundation. But Ms. Crawford will not resign herself to an unwitting wife who is like a lamb to slaughter, right in the midway, Myra receives a rude awakening and unearths Lester's sinister plan, after the initial shock and distress (which inconveniently outstays its welcome as Ms. Crawford's one-woman show), and a clumsy act which accidentally destroys the key testimony, she straightens up and dauntlessly decides to preempt their action in her own way.

Here, the movie starts to glisten with suspense, under the ominous chiaroscuro lighting, particularly designated in her favour, Ms. Crawford's dignified mien glints intensely from resolution, hesitation, worry to utter fear, and everything is on tenterhooks, viewers vicariously experience the struggle, strain and danger from Myra's viewpoint, playing meek and unsuspicious in front of her double-faced husband on a daily basis, cautiously plotting her counter-move in the sly step by step, while keeping hold of her usual pretence without arousing any suspicion, she must be a natural actress herself to fake a glamorous fall from staircases without any damage done to undercut her mobility, also a first-rate penmanship-imitator, and practising her first-ever plan of murder in her mind, which is a dead giveaway that things will not proceed exactly in the way as she has envisaged. The biggest question is, is she as good killer as an actress? Is she capable of pulling the trigger when the crunch arrives?

The script mercifully (or rather cowardly) saves Myra from being the ultimate executioner of poetic justice, lest it would blemish Crawford's iconic benevolent image, she is never a noir heroine, and here, she is ever so close to be one, an Oscar nomination is quite rewarding, it is the only time, she and her arch-enemy, Ms. Bette Davis (in Stuart Heisler's THE STAR 1952) are competing in the same category, although both are the charming also-rans in this case. An angular, hatched-faced Jack Palance is an unorthodox leading man in his career breakthrough role, who has no qualm in oozing venom while being hospitable and deferential. Yet, he is routinely degraded with a BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Oscar nomination, high-fives with his fellow nominee Richard Burton in Henry Koster's MY COUSIN RACHEL (1952), an Olivia de Havilland's vehicle, two glaring examples of Academy's category injustice for budding leading actors.

One of the strong points of this David Miller's thriller is the cinematography from Charles Lang, greatly taps into the forbidding nighttime of San Francisco, e.g. the final chasing sequences in the steep streets, sufficiently surpasses the ongoing action itself. Finally, a friendly advice to all female viewers, sometimes, you have to stick to your instinct of the first impression, simply because it is a life-saving bonanza bequeathed by nature itself, don't easily throw it away.

Overlong and lots of overacting. Joan Crawford is overacting almost all the time, often with a forced smile. Overdramatical, sometimes her eyes are almost popping out of her head. The story is not so compelling and it takes ages to get to the more interesting part, in which she does lots of stupid things. The ending is quite pathetic.

Joan Crawford is a playwright who marries Jack Palance and then realizes he is planning to kill her. The formula works this time, thanks largely to the impressive acting of both Crawford and her leading man, Jack Palance. Gloria Grahame is the "other woman" (as usual) and plays an important part in the plot twist that provides a surprise ending.

Nail biting suspense, this is a film noirish kind of thriller that goes into full gear once Crawford learns her marriage is a mistake. Both Joan and Bette Davis (real-life rivals) were nominated for Best Actress Oscars when this was released (Davis for 'The Star') but they both lost to Shirley Booth (for 'Come Back, Little Sheba').

A good, crisp, no-nonsense thriller that showed us how good Jack Palance was in sinister roles.

This downright genius film-noir is almost 70 (!) years old, and yet it's still far more intense and suspenseful - according to me, of course - than any thriller made nowadays. Watch and take notes, aspiring scriptwriters! The immeasurably talented cult siren Joan Crawford puts down one of her greatest performances ever, as the wealthy middle-aged playwright Myra Hudson. For her latest stage play, she decides to sack the robust actor Lester Blaine because he lacks the right romantic personality. I can relate to that, since Lester is played by the one and only Jack Palance, and even in his early thirties he pretty much looked like the human version of a demolition hammer! And yet, Lester later succeeds in wooing Myra during a train journey and shortly after they live as a married couple in picturesque San Francisco. At the peak of her marital happiness, however, Myra coincidentally discovers that Lester and his mistress are plotting to murder her. After recovering from the initial shock, Myra uses her playwright skills to turn the tables around. Should you choose to watch "Sudden Fear", prepare to witness near-perfection in every cinematic department. Both Joan Crawford and Jack Palance are amazing, and were righteously nominated for an Academy Award. Add to this a super-intelligent script and Charles Lang's dazzling camera work, and you've got yourself a guaranteed film-noir masterpiece.

I've lately been listening to a series of blogs on Joan Crawford's career and so was directed to this film noir for which she was Oscar nominated. It turns out to be a terrific thriller with la grand dame Joan in her element as the rich middle-aged heiress who in her spare time knocks out hit plays on Broadway. While casting her new play she rejects for the lead part a young actor (Jack Palance in an early role) much to his disappointment but when they later share a train journey back to San Francisco, romantic sparks surprisingly seem to fly between them and before long Crawford's Myra Hudson apparently has the one thing missing from her comfortable but incomplete life, a loving husband. Or so she thinks. At one of the couple's house parties, an attractive young woman (Gloria Grahame) appears who we soon learn is actually Palance's girl-friend and before long they've cooked up a plan to get rid of the millionairess Joan, leaving all her lovely money to Palance as her grieving widower for them to spend.

Only problem is that Crawford plans to change her will as soon as her lawyer comes back to town after the weekend, donating the bulk of it to charity and so greatly reducing Palance's expected bounty. So Palance and Grahame hurriedly devise a plan to murder Crawford over the weekend but accidentally and inconveniently for them as it turns out, record their plan on Joan's dictaphone recording machine for her to later hear, much to her horror. When she accidentally breaks the recorded disc of the evidence, it seems to her the only way to save herself is to devise a cunning plan of her own to eliminate her would-be murderers. Like the playwright she is, Myra's own plan is carefully crafted but naturally things don't exactly go to plan leading to a tense, exciting dead of night climax on the dark deserted streets of San Francisco.

This is one of those noirs with a too-fantastic plot which could fall apart at any moment but builds up such a head of steam down to taut atmospheric direction, a strong Elmer Bernstein soundtrack and top acting by the three leads (Palance was Oscar-nominated too), that you're swept along with each unlikely turn of events until the fraught conclusion which returns Joan to a darkened apartment with a gun just like it did Mildred Pierce years before only this time she's looking out for herself and not her selfish daughter. She's great in this, her expressive face often shown in close-up reminding us she started in silent movies. Palance is surprisingly good as the fawning, oily-slick husband and Graham as ever is good value as the pushy, tarty mistress egging Palance on.

Making good use of San Francisco's exteriors, Joan's extensive wardrobe and in a key-scene, a mechanical toy-dog, this is a great fast-paced noir led by a star performer in one of her last but best leading roles.

The "Sudden Fear" of the title is what Miss Crawford experiences when she discovers that the young actor she has married, (an excellent and Oscar-nominated early performance from Jack Palance), is planning to murder her. David Miller's thriller is both extremely enjoyable and highly implausible with Joan pulling out all the stops and also picking up an Oscar nomination for her trouble. The movie marked something of a late career boost for her and was largely instrumental in launching Palance who clearly had a knack for playing the bad guy. As Mr Palance's partner-in-crime Gloria Grahame seems to be having a lot more fun here than she did in the overrated "The Bad and the Beautiful".

A struggling young actor marries a rich middle-aged playwright and isn't thrilled to learn that she plans to give away her wealth to charity. This is a solid thriller with good performances from Crawford (reviving her career) and Palance (only his third film), each nominated for an Oscar. Grahame has typical bad girl role, Bennett is wasted in an inconsequential role, and Connors makes his film debut. After a slow start, the suspense builds nicely, although the plot is contrived. It is hard to believe that Crawford would take matters into her own hands rather than seek help from the police or friends. The fine film noir cinematography is a big plus.

This picture, as well as the re-issue of KING KONG, were the first two movies to be heavily advertised on television. A big success for RKO Radio Pictures. Being an RKO Picture you can expect lots of on-location photography and seeing places like New York and San Francisco as they were 55 years ago adds to the appeal of this fine movie.

SUDDEN FEAR was nominated for 4 Academy Awards (given in 1952 for high quality rather than political opinion), and this recognition was well deserved. An obvious -- and pretty successful -- imitation of Hitchcock this movie is one of the best murder mysteries ever made. I've never seen Joan Crawford or Jack Palance play better roles. David Miller's direction is inspired. And the black and white cinematography meets the highest standard.

Since they haven't yet made a good movie in 2008, and apparently intend to continue a 90% diet of so-called action movies --- utterly lacking in courage or purpose, where the hero solves made-believe problems by using computer animation instead of brains... Don't get me started. Just go back to the good ones, rent the DVD of Sudden Fear.

I liked Sudden Fear but I didn't love it. On the plus side, Joan Crawford is always a force of nature, and this film is no exception; and Jack Palance and Gloria Grahame give good performances as well. The cinematography is good and the use of San Francisco locations adds luster.

My trouble is with the script. The first half of the movie drags a bit--almost as if they are trying to lull you to sleep--before they whack you over the head with the first big twist.

I love twists in a plot, but they need to be believable and organic to the characters. This one felt contrived, and the character's response to the twists unbelievable. It was like watching three different personalities playing the one part -- with no real explanation for WHY the sudden shifts and turns of personality.

Film Noir was never more suspenseful and energetic than in this, a wonderful movie. The best reason to see this film is for one of the three principals, either Jack Palance, whose portrayal of a murderous actor husband is great, Gloria Grahame's role as a sultry other woman conspiring with Palance to murder his wife is deftly played, and the best of all is Joan Crawford, who steals every scene and gives a greatly emotional and wholly impeccable performance as the wealthy playwright wife to Jack Palance and would-be murder victim. If this movie ever shows up, DON'T miss it. You'll be quite sorry, for this is a brilliant motion picture.