Suicídio ou Assassinato?

This is an early British Hammer film, but it was filmed in Italy and co-scripted by future Italian director Antonio Marghareti, so it also in some ways anticipates the later Italian giallo thrillers, mostly in its enjoyably absurd plot. In the creepy opening scene a man (Peter Van Eck) puts on a scuba mask (it's technically not a "snorkel") and hides under the floor boards in order to gas his sleeping wife from inside her locked room. The police naturally think its suicide, but the murdered woman's teen daughter (Mandy Miller) comes home from school and immediately suspects the truth--naturally since she earlier witnessed her step-father drowning her father. Everyone thinks she's crazy, of course, (even after he bumps off her little dog, "Toto", too). Her governess (Betta St. John )meanwhile is torn between her loyalty her apparently delusional charge and her attraction to the suave, seemingly distraught widower.

Now if this were a giallo there would be many more, no doubt very bloody, murders, the couple would graphically consummate their relationship, and even little Mandy would probably get in on the erotic and/or violent action somehow (i.e. check out the later giallo "Smile Before Death" which has a very similar plot, but with all these elements added in). But don't expect anything like that here. Still, this is very entertaining and has some ironic and effective twists at the end (the very last scene, however, is a terrible cop-out, no doubt tacked on to ameliorate the douchebags, I mean censors). The acting is indeed very good, especially that of Van Eyck and Miller (I hope this isn't the same Mandy Miller who later appeared in David Sullivan's horrible "Emmanuelle in Soho", but that seems pretty unlikely). You definitely want to check this one out.

Minor but entertaining Hammer thriller, not quite reaching the heights of other entries in their "psychological thrillers" ouevre, but still effective.

The film starts right off with it's main murderer on screen committing his evil deed, clearly establishing his (and the film's) gimmick of the snorkel used as an accessory to murder. So from the very beginning we know this is not going to be a whodunnit. What we have here instead here is a "who will find out" plot.

Once the opening credits have finished, the main plot of the film starts with the daughter of the murder victim feeling almost positive that she knows who is responsible for the deed but at the same time, unable to prove it, as nobody has been able to work out how the act was committed, and therefore the killer has got away with it. The more agitated the daughter becomes, the more the killer starts to see her as a threat to his freedom, and so a cat and mouse game starts to build as both try to outwit each other.

This sounds complicated, and it is, but the roles in the film are quite well defined. The killer is a creepy but charismatic older man, able to convince everyone that he is actually mourning his dead wife, and the "suspector" is a teenage girl who everyone thinks is just over imaginative. I could almost imagine William Castle making this film! The acting is very good, and it's all very British and proper. There are plot twists and the climax is clever and worth waiting for, although as a whole the film has dated somewhat. Quite hard to see now, seemingly only available on the Sony 6 film box set DVD "Icons of Suspense", which is worth a purchase due to it having 5 other hard to see Hammer thrillers. So "The Snorkel" gets a thumbs up from me.

Although the police have termed her mother's death by gas a suicide, a teenage girl (Mandy Miller) believes her step-father (Peter VanEyck) murdered her.

Hammer may be best known for their horror films, but they made some pretty fine thrillers and murder mysteries, too, as this film attests. Helmed by Guy Green (who made his name under David Lean) and written by Hammer's Jimmy Sangster, this is just pure genius beginning to end.

From the opening scene, we know how the killer does his work... but then we watch and see if his teenage stepdaughter can find out. Blaming someone for murder is one thing, but finding solid proof is something else entirely.

A plot common to quite a few suspense movies: apparently good guy gains affection of family, the better to obtain his greedy objectives. The alibi he creates for murder may have been clever in 1958 but today's technology would make it seem obvious.

However, the plot resolves itself to a showdown between the killer and a little girl. While the tale may echo Cape Fear, The Night of the Hunter etc, without their panache, the ultimate resolution is more like Wait Until Dark and the climax is carried off with as much tension and almost as much success. It must be nearly 30 years since I first saw both films - and I recall this climax as clearly as the better known Arkin-Hepburn performance.

Poor Candy Brown (Mandy Miller). She cannot get anybody to believe her. She's 100% certain that her cold blooded stepfather Paul Decker (Peter van Eyck) has murdered her mother, despite the evidence seeming to indicate that the woman committed suicide. Mandy, who also believes in her heart that Paul had similarly murdered her father once upon a time, sticks to her guns. But the adults around her keep stubbornly insisting that she *must* be making all of this up.

It's easy to be on Candy's side here. With so many thick headed adult characters, you truly feel her frustration and desperation. Will she ever obtain the proof she needs that Paul is a creep? People like her chaperone Jean Edwards (Betta St. John, "The City of the Dead"), Mr. Wilson (William Franklyn), or the hearty police inspector (Gregoire Aslan) refuse to take her seriously, even though she doesn't seem to be the sort of girl who'd be prone to flights of fancy.

The suspense lies not in a "did he or didn't he" scenario - we see Paul murder Candy's mother in the quiet, ingenious opening set piece. The title object plays a pivotal role. Rather, the tension arises in Candy's predicament, and whether or not she'll be vindicated before the evil Paul strikes again. And we know it's possible. The looks he keeps giving her show that he thinks that he'll have to kill her just to shut her up.

Efficient direction by Oscar winning cinematographer Guy Green ("Great Expectations", 1946) and sharp black & white photography make this a fine entertainment, as well as strong performances from all concerned. Miller makes Candy a sympathetic character, and with his facial features van Eyck was obviously a natural for screen villainy.

This viewer would suggest that fans of Hammer horror give features like this a try, just to show that the famed British studio wasn't just a one trick pony.

Seven out of 10.