Step Down to Terror

****SPOILERS**** Overdone story about a serial killer who specializes in murdering wealthy widows dropping in on his mother and her step-daughter and grandson in California. whatever you think of Johnny Walters, Charles Drake, you know he's up to no good from the very beginning. Chased by what looked like two plain-clothes policemen he later drives west to see his mom Sarah Walter, Josephine Hutchinson, in the Golden State whom he hasn't seen in six years. Johnny has a split-personality with him being sweet gentle and loving as well as secretive nasty and violent.

Johnny inadvertently gets his sister-in-law Helen, Coleen Miller,to check out a newspaper that he ripped an article out of at the local public library and she sees in that newspaper that there's a killer on the loose and his latest victim was a woman from New Orleans who he murdered named Janice Dawson.

Sweet and kind Johnny gave Helen a ring with the initials J.D on it that he couldn't convincingly explain to her how those initials got there; a ring he won gambling Johnny told her. Later the policeman who came from out of state to arrest Johnny Mike Randall, Rod Taylor, calls Helen and tells her the good news that the killer who they were looking for who the police thought was Johnny was killed in a shoot out in New York City. This came across as pure gobbeldygook since how did the police know, just by him being dead, that he was the killer of the women that Johnny was suspected of killing. That still didn't explain Johnny's creepy and unnerving actions with Helen, who he tried to kill twice by having her fall down a stairway that he "fixed" and then later tried to kill her by putting a bottle of sleeping pills in her milk. I thought for a moment that Randall just wanted Helen as well as Johnny to know that he wasn't a suspect so that he would have his guard down and make it easier for the police to arrest him later.

Another thing that struck me was Johnny's mental state. Why would he throw suspicion on himself by tearing out the article about the killings since his name wasn't mentioned at all in the story? By him acting so guilty Johnny only made Helen suspect that he was the killer especially with the clue that he gave her. The ring with the initials G.D those of the killers victim in the article?

Charles Drake played a psycho killer to the hilt and almost as well as Anthony Perkins played Norman Bates in the movie "Psycho" two years later. The movie makers of "Step down to Terror" didn't seem to know how to end the picture with it having something like three different endings.

Ending #!. Johnny meekly giving himself up to the police. Ending #2. Johnny Cracking Randell's skull as he was about to arrest him. And Ending #3. Johnny driving away from the police and having his seven year-old nephew Doug,Ricky Kelman, come out of nowhere with his bike in front of Johnny's car and Johnny getting killed trying to avoid him with Helen in the car as a hostage surviving the crash.

This film noir has essentially the same story as Alfred Hitchcock's famous film of 15 years previously, A SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943). According to the IMDb entry for Gordon McDonell, he was a writer for both films, though he does not actually appear in the IMDb listing for the Hitchcock film. There are considerable differences between the films. In this one, the happy family has a young son, played by Rickey Kelman. But the Hitchcock film's happy family had a daughter, played by Theresa Wright, who was well known by that time and much older than Kelman. The story in both cases involves the uncle of the children turning up unexpectedly at the family home to stay with them for a prolonged period. The children in both stories have never seen him before, as he is the brother of their deceased father who had been out of touch with everyone for years. The uncle is very handsome and charming and an interesting and well-travelled person. So at first everyone is thrilled. But there is a slight problem: he is psychopathic killer on the run, hence really hiding out with the family. Naturally, the Hitchcock film is superior, in which the uncle is played by Joseph Cotton. But in this film he is played very well indeed by the less well known Charles Drake, perhaps even in some ways more convincingly. The title chosen for this film is rather silly, though it does refer to one minor detail in the story. Rod Taylor makes a significant appearance in the film at an early stage of his career, aged 28, and does very well. The film is certainly effective and is not just a pale copy of the Hitchcock film.

Immediately recognizable as a remake of Hitchcock's 'Shadow of a Doubt'. Charles Drake adequately replicates Joseph Cotten's initially bland, innocuous deportment, but the movie, trimmed down in running time and the shedding of several characters, a significant step down from the original, looks formulaic and becomes increasingly defined by Drake's predictable terror by numbers performance.

1) Becoming worryingly irritated and aggressive over an engraved ring. 2) Unconvincingly finding a lame excuse to tear a page from the local newspaper. 3) Colleen Miller's young son receiving a new bicycle puts a drastic spoke in his wheel, sparking bitter memories relating to a cycling incident from his own past. Shortly afterwards he 'accidentally' reverses his car over the gleaming dream machine, instantly reducing it to scrap metal. 4) When the family are selected to partake in a survey involving interviews and photographs, he stays out of sight, retiring to his bed with a mystery illness. 5) The manic, rambling 'world is a jungle' rant, populated only by two faced, rotten to the core, money grabbing hypocrites, hiding behind a wafer thin veneer of respectability.

Colleen Miller takes on the Teresa Wright role of the astute and dutiful family member, who rumbles that there is something monstrous; a dangerous phony lurking behind Drake's outwardly avuncular facade. A remake that need never have been remade. As such, it is rarely more than mildly interesting and moderately entertaining. When it comes to suspense, Hitchcock holds all the cards.

Avoid any comparison with Hitchcock's masterful "shadow of a doubt" ,its remake would suffer ; nobody here can match the Teresa Wright/Joseph Cotten pair ,and the director can't begin to touch the master's genius of suspense of psychological tension .Thornton Wilder and Alma Hitchcock had dramatically enriched the original story ,by creating lots of new characters ,all more colorful than the one before .

In the family where the uncle takes refuge, there are only three persons; the mother ,the widowed daughter-in-law and her son ; the detective (played by Rod Taylor ,later star of Hitchcock's "the birds") plays a more prominent part than in the 1952 version,and he quickly falls in love with Helen ,the niece (there's no love/hate relationship between her and her uncle ) ; the ring is a good trick , so is the crushed bike .The film is rather short (about 75 min) and sometimes the events are too hurried for comfort; the denouement is rather poor and implausible .

Charles Drake is handsome and quite convincing when he charms the old ladies .

Needless to say ,you will always be better off with the fifties version.

"Step Down to Terror" is a remake of the Hitchcock film, "Shadow of a Doubt". This alone makes for a very tall order, as the original was quite a picture and Hitchcock such a famous director. But what makes it all worse is that the story itself seemed second-rate at best and really kept little of the suspense that made the original worth seeing.

Charles Drake plays a man on the run from the law...though exactly what he's done isn't clear until later in the film. He arrives in his old hometown after being gone six years. He says it's to see family and perhaps settle down there, but it's really a ruse...he's there to hide from the law.

At first, the family is thrilled he is home. However, his widowed sister-in-law goes from adoring him and welcoming his return to actually confronting him when she thinks he might be a murderer...which is amazingly dumb. From this point to the ending, it all goes VERY quickly and is really disappointing.

The bottom line is that this remake is inferior in every way and I can't think of a good reason to watch it. Stick with the original...unless you want to compare them and see why the Hitchcock version is simply better.