The Hypnotist

Amusing to note the American title of Scotland Yard Dragnet since there is no Dragnet.It really is a pretty atrocious ragbag of a film.You get the impression that Monte Tully got out a bundle of rejected scripts and took parts out of each,so disjointed is the story. The episode in the jazz club and the meeting with a pick up sees to have no connection with the rest ofthe film.Paul Carpenterwanders around the centre of 1956 London,and that is the most interesting part of the film Music is used in an unsuccessful attempt to beef up the drama.

This has B film written all over it. The dull and incredulous storyline, together with a lack lustre cast of one dimensional characters, made me lose interest fairly quickly. I suppose the film makers hoped that by weaving a story around an American test pilot, it would give the film an excitement and transatlantic appeal, but sadly the hero, played by Paul Carpenter is uninspiring, and merely plods his way through the film, failing to convince the audience that he's having some sort of mental breakdown. The scene where he wanders around London in a daze is tedious in the extreme! The only actor who stood out was the wonderfully urbane and cultured actor, Roland Culver, playing the dubious and unscrupulous psychiatrist. Below average film, strictly to be seen on a very rainy day!

I figured out that one of the characters was up to something fairly early on in this psychological drama patterned after Hitchcock's 'Spellbound' but it was the 'why' that kept me guessing...

Ellen Pollock in fifties glasses as usual makes a vivid impression with little screen time as the scornful harpy living upstairs.

...the compendium of clichés about psychiatry that emerge in the first ten minutes or so.

"Psychosomatic illness is caused by buried trauma." "Everything you have ever thought or experienced is recorded in your mind, but you've suppressed it. If we can just recover those repressed memories... "

I'm looking forward to London's empty streets and a nameless blonde.

Didn't they have carrier bags in 1956?

I rated this film 6/10 as just above average.The other reviewer disclosed the murderer but anyone who watches this film could easily work it out.This because there are relatively few characters to choose from and apart from the obvious "red herring" it could only be one person.Audiences are so versed and educated in modern crime thrillers so they steer past the obvious, to wit: 1.Do not suspect the obvious hero whom the author points you towards.2.Ignore slightly sinister extras who have little or no dialogue - the audience cannot feel a rapprochement with them.3.When the motive appears in the screenplay suspect the character with the most to gain.

I vaguely remember Paul Carpenter (the lead actor) who was a Canadian actor from Montreal and who appeared quite regularly on British TV in the 50s and early 60s but his resume is strictly "B" rated and the British actors are similarly not of the first box office magnitude.The whole film reminds me of a typical "B" feature production value and budget film of the 50s in my youth (I am 64 now) when the cinema goer first had a cartoon, then Pathe News, then the "B" feature and finally "The Big Film", for the price of admission.

I always like to look at the cars, taxis, lack of parking restrictions in London shown in films during the 50s and of course the clothes fashions and manner of speaking.It's part of the fascination for me and why I like to buy dvds of this vintage.