Avaliações de usuários

Crescendo is directed by Alan Gibson and written by Alfred Shaughnessy and Jimmy Sangster. It stars Stefanie Powers, James Olson, Margaretta Scott, Jane Lapotaire and Joss Ackland. Music is by Malcolm Williamson and cinematography by Paul Beeson.

Susan Roberts (Powers) travels to the South of France to stay with the Ryman family as she researches the work of late composer Henry Ryman for her thesis. Once there at the villa, Susan finds that the remaining family members are a little strange…

Out of Hammer Films, Crescendo came at the end of the studio's cycle of psycho-thrillers that had begun so magnificently with Taste of Fear in 1961. Filmed in Technicolor, Crescendo has more than a passing resemblance to Taste of Fear. We are in a remote French villa in the company of some shifty characters. A wheelchair features prominently, there's spooky goings on, skeletons in the closet and our lead lady who is the outsider at the villa is in grave danger. So it's Taste of Fear but in colour then!

Crescendo is not a great film, it's ponderously paced by Gibson, meandering through the first half set up and it's all a bit too obvious as to what is going to unravel. That said, the finale is a good pay off in its construction, the Ryman villa set is suitably designed for some creepy shenanigans, while the colour photography is deliciously lurid with the zesty oranges and ocean greens particularly striking the requisite campo composition.

Then there's the cast! Powers is just dandy, having had her trial run in the disappointing Die! Die! My Darling! in 1965, she hits the required "woman in confused peril" notes even though the script does her absolutely no favours. Olson gets to don the worst hair cut in Hammer history as Georges, but the character is pungent with emotional disturbances. Wheelchair bound and having a penchant for hard drugs administered by the sultry maid…

Ah yes! Lapotaire as the housemaid Lillianne, she steams up the screen with her teasing sexuality, positively revelling in her ability to have poor Georges eating out of her hand. Scott handles the batty Ryman matriarch well enough, while Ackland does a damn fine Lurch impression. The film has some qualities that put it above average, but it's a bit too bloodless to be a must see horror film, and much too laborious to be a thriller. It sits in some sort of Hammer Film purgatory, a picture that asks you to take the rough with the smooth. But all things considered, you probably should watch Taste of Fear instead. 6/10

This was the last of Hammer's 10 psycho-thrillers to get watched by me: in the long run, it is a middle-of-the-road effort, not particularly good but neither is it among the worst. Still, the film has palpable deficiencies, first and foremost because it is severely undercast (though lead Stefanie Powers had already co-starred in the above-average FANATIC aka DIE! DIE! MY DARLING {1965} from the same stable: incidentally, I regret not giving that one a spin as part of my recent tribute to its late director Silvio Narizzano!) and over-familiar – to say nothing of being essentially dreary – in plot line. In fact, it borrows the French setting, wheelchair-bound protagonist and the mysterious room from TASTE OF FEAR aka SCREAM OF FEAR {1961}, the hallucinations pertaining to a past crime from NIGHTMARE {1964} – both among the company's top outings and both also scripted by the late Jimmy Sangster, who here reworked Alfred Shaughnessy's original scenario…which had actually been intended for Michael Reeves, the promising but short-lived director of WITCHFINDER GENERAL {1968}! – and the domineering mother from FANATIC itself. By the way, the pool-as-murder-setting owes its origins to Henri-Georges Clouzot's seminal DIABOLIQUE (1955), which – along with Alfred Hitchcock's even more celebrated PSYCHO {1960} – was virtually the template for all of these Hammer shockers to begin with! Another clear link to the latter's cinematic universe is the molding of one character into the personality of another, now deceased, which was at the center of both his REBECCA (1940) and VERTIGO (1958)! One additional motif here is the eerie presence of broken dolls, which may very well have already been employed by some earlier Hammer shocker but was certainly a vital feature of Freddie Francis' THE PSYCHOPATH (1966): while this was made for the company's rival Amicus, its director had contributed a trio of titles to the British House Of Horror's Grand Guignol-infused subgenre.

The afore-mentioned dreams that afflict hero James Olson (who had just starred in Hammer's goofy 'Space Western' MOON ZERO TWO {1969}) do rather give away the final twist (much-abused over the years), especially with the repetition but, then, the plot does incorporate a number of red herrings which makes one think the narrative will be going a certain way only for it to change direction before long. These have to do with the sordid goings-on in the central mansion and the sleazy characters that inhabit it, the others being Margaretta Scott – whom I was mainly familiar with from the mammoth Alexander Korda/William Cameron Menzies sci-fi THINGS TO COME (1936) – as Olson's "obsessed" mother (determined to keep the memory of her late and distinguished composer husband alive), Jane Lapotaire as the "sensuous" maid (who procures Olson with his heroin fix for sexual services rendered – the film is reasonably explicit in this regard – though at the same time deluding herself that she can one day become his wife) and "sinister" manservant Joss Ackland (who seems to have something going with the latter as well but nothing is eventually made of it!). I deliberately quoted the adjectives utilized in the accompanying theatrical trailer (for the record, though CRESCENDO was recently issued on DVD-R as part of Warners' "Archive Collection", the copy I watched came via a serviceable VHS source) to describe each of these three characters!

To the house arrives young, pretty music teacher Powers who has decided to research the life and work of Scott's husband for her Masters degree; the main piano theme, while quite good in itself, does receive a thorough work-out amid the proceedings. Another quibble I have with the script expressly concerns her presence there (though it is not limited to the film under review), that is to say, if the household obviously concealed some dark secret that would invariably bring the whole crushing down (thankfully, not literally) on its occupants, why tempt Fate by inviting an outsider into their fold? The climax, then, is appropriately intense but also not exactly inspired (with Ackland's demise proving especially unconvincing) and abrupt into the bargain. Indeed, even if the handling here of Hammer newbie Alan Gibson was appreciated by some, I had always been somewhat wary of his involvement since he would subsequently helm the notorious last two entries in the company's "Dracula" franchise, which brought the mythical vampire Count uneasily into contemporary times (though he still could not tarnish the reputation of genre icons Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee)! Even so, I did enjoy one of his two contributions to the HAMMER HOUSE OF HORROR (1980) TV series (which had also starred Cushing) and was intrigued enough by the picture that would follow CRESCENDO, namely the obscure but impressively-cast telepathic horror GOODBYE GEMINI (1970), that I acquired it soon after this viewing...

Hammer studios were obviously most famous for their horror flicks, but they did produce some work in other genres; and the thriller genre was one of their strongest outside horror, especially during the sixties with films such as Paranoiac and A Taste of Fear. I had rather high hopes for this one going into it despite its poor reputation simply for the fact that Hammer produced it and they have produced some good thrillers; such as those mentioned, but unfortunately it would seem that the studio's success in this genre didn't continue into the seventies as Crescendo, despite some good moments and positive elements, is a largely lacklustre thriller. The plot focuses on a young girl who goes to stay at a house in France to help her with a thesis. The house used to belong to a famous music composer but is now owned by his wife and son after the composer's death. The girl soon gets to meet the family as well as the staff and soon it becomes apparent that not everything is as it should be; mostly because everyone in the house is a weirdo!

The film's main problem is that it largely fails to be interesting; the story is derivative and not all that interesting anyway, and this isn't compensated for by the characters (who are also largely uninteresting) so we end up with a film that doesn't fit the 'thriller' bill very well. Most of the film takes place in an old, large house; although director Alan Gibson doesn't really make best use of this in terms of atmosphere. The director would go on to make the latter two films in the popular Dracula series - the fun Dracula A.D. 1972 and the disappointing Satanic Rites of Dracula and both of these lacked atmosphere too. Crescendo was apparently made for TV and this is pretty obvious as it's all quite tame; there are actually a few murders in this film but we never get to see much blood and they're not very brutal. Nobody in the cast particularly stands out either; Stefanie Powers is the biggest standout in the lead role, though not particularly for her performance. There is a twist at the end which comes as something of a surprise, but as the build up to it is quite dull; the twist doesn't come off all that well. Overall, I can't say I enjoyed this film much and I'd only recommend it to Hammer Horror completists.

This is a thriller from England's Hammer studios and not a TV movie as some comments have suggested. A woman arrives at a country estate to write a thesis on a dead classical composer. While she's there, she becomes involved in a twisted tale involving infidelity and murder and finds her own life in jeopardy. Warner Brothers released this uncut and rated R but later cut it down to PG and used it on double bills with Dracula AD 72 and WHEN DINOSAURS RULED THE EARTH. WHEN DINOSAURS was cut down to a G rating and seeing as Warner's is releasing Dracula AD later this year, maybe they can get around to their other remaining Hammer properties. It would be great to see CRESCENDO AND DINOSAURS get uncut R1 DVD releases.

American Susan Roberts (Stefanie Powers) goes to the south of France to research the late composer Henry Ryman. She is staying with his family. There are his widow wife Danielle (Margaretta Scott) and his wheelchair-bound son Georges (James Olson).

This is a Hammer horror. Like a lot of them, they're not actually scary. It's more a psychological thriller with some injected nudity to try to make it erotic. It doesn't get sexier than Stefanie Powers but the movie drags. The flashbacks are too clunky. I really don't like shooting the pool scenes in a studio. There is something inferior about this and it annoys me. Besides all that, the bigger sin is the lack of tension, thrills, or scares. I guess it has a few thrills in the final section but it's too little, too late.

For her masters degree in music, Susan Roberts (Stefanie Powers) intends to write a thesis on the late composer Henry Ryman and accepts an invitation to stay at the Ryman villa in the south of France, home to Henry's widow Danielle, her wheelchair-bound son Georges (James Olson), and their staff: manservant Carter (Joss Ackland) and maid Lillianne (Jane Lapotaire). However, soon after arriving, Susan realises that something is very wrong in the Ryman household.

This psychological horror from Hammer is admittedly slow-moving, and instead of building to a crescendo, it closes with a rather trite twist that I imagine most will have seen coming a mile off. That said, the film does score major points with its fine cast of five, who deliver memorable performances despite the predictability of the script. The gorgeous Stefanie Powers is terrific as the woman-in-peril, proving a far more capable actress than her role in Hart to Hart ever suggested; Ackland is very effective as menacing manservant Carter; Olson is required to run the gamut from pitiful to deranged, and does so admirably; Scott is relatively restrained, but still acquits herself well as the clearly not-quite-right matriarch; and Lapotaire steals every scene she is in, oozing sultriness with a side-order of insanity.

Those looking for horror in this particular Hammer outing might be disappointed by the one murder, but the film offers up some sleaze by way of compensation, with Georges revealed to be a heroin addict who is sexually teased by Lillianne, who wants to become his wife so that she can quit her job and live the high life. Lapotaire strips off several times, most notably for a naked swim in the Ryman pool, while Powers flaunts her bod in a blue bikini and briefly gets topless for a dream sequence.

Not nearly as bad as others might have you believe, this is definitely worth checking out if you've enjoyed Hammer's other psychological thrillers (or if you've always wanted to see Jennifer Hart's jubblies).

This is one of those films that rarely gets a good review. In fact it's been pretty much forgotten! It probably isn't one of Hammer's greatest achievements but it is by no means one of the worst. There are some rather uneventful scenes but I think they add to the suspense. The photography is very effective in places and the setting is quite haunting in a picturesque kind of way. The music which obviously is a major part of the story also adds to the more sinister scenes. The best performance comes from the seductive and eccentric maid, Lilliane (played by Jane Lapotaire) and Joss Ackland also puts in a fine performance as Carter (the butler/minder). It is not available on DVD and probably never will be, so if it's ever shown on TV it's certainly worth a look at.

Stefanie Powers is a musicologist doing her thesis on a recently dead composer. To further her research, he goes to visit the dead man's family and discovers they are a weird mob. In particular, James Olson, the wheelchair-bound son of the composer (whom he also plays) has a strange dependency on his mother, played by Margaretta Scott.

It's A Jimmy Sangster screenplay, so there is plenty of sexual innuendo in the script, besides the outright sex scenes; there's a snickering, leering sort of edge to a lot of cheaper British movies in this period, almost certainly intended to appeal to the adolescents who were still going to them in this period. I think it casts a pall over much of the industry, from James Bond, through the Carry On films, to efforts like this one, so much so that I didn't bother to make a joke about Peter Schickele and another about Superman that I might have. Feel free to make them yourself.

Around this time, the type of movies that Hammer was most famous for were becoming out of style, so the studio desperately tried to tackle some other kind of movies, this being one of them. Few of these new efforts were successful financially or critically, and "Crescendo" was not an exception. There are two main problems with this movie. The first being that the movie unfolds at an extremely slow pace. In the first half hour of the movie, for example, pretty much nothing of significance happens. Eventually things do start to happen, but the movie not only still suffers from a glacial pace, there is the second problem with the movie. That being that the story is often head-scratching. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and even though the movie tries at the end to have a big surprise revelation, there are still plenty of unanswered questions as the end credits start to roll. I will say that the movie is decently produced, from the nice looking sets to the work with the camera, but that did little to stop me from starting to nod off long before the movie reached its end.

'Crescendo' is a very rare and mediocre British psychological horror thriller from Hammer studios and despite having a familiar feel to some of their better thrillers such as 'Taste of Fear', 'Hysteria' or even 'Paranoiac', this effort falls flat in almost every possible with its lacklustre storytelling, dull atmosphere, zero suspense or thrills and poorly written characters. Boring movies like this is the reason why Hammer Horror films started to fall out of fashion by the 1970's.

The Plot = Susan Roberts (Stefanie Powers), an American music scholar visits the South of France to work on her thesis research on a recently deceased composer, staying with his eccentric relatives and soon realizes something sinister is going on.

The only positives I could give is that the direction by Alan Gibson is somewhat competent and the acting performances are solid with Stefanie Powers giving an intelligent and fierce leading lady performance. Joss Ackland and Margaretta Scott roles adds a nice touch of class to an otherwise lacklustre production. James Olsen was fine as the wheelchair bound son. But Jane Lapotaire's performance as the French maid felt like a caricature and was just awful all around.

There's nothing much to recommend here as there's really not much worth mentioning. The so-called plot twist was one of the most obvious and worst shocks I've ever seen, the horror aspect was non existent as the death scenes lacked any spark. The premise could have had some potential, but the poor pacing and lack of any excitement bogs down any sort of potential this may have had.

Overall 'Crescendo' fully deserves to be forgotten and that's it.

Stefanie Powers stars as a graduate student who travels to the home of a recently deceased composer to study his work. In addition to his widow, his son (James Olsen) lives in the house. He was a tennis player who has been bound to a wheelchair due to an accident. Powers discovers she bears a striking resemblance to his girlfriend who left him after the accident. She falls for him, but things are not exactly what they seem to be. One of the last psycho-thrillers made by Hammer. The cast is good, with Joss Ackland also appearing as a household servant. The film really drags during the laborious set up, but it has a satisfying and somewhat surprising climax.

This is a fairly decent attempt at a fairly standard mystery plot: A beautiful young woman goes to stay with a mysterious, secretive family, and the audience anticipates the specific nature of the secrets before they're revealed. This one had a decent cast and was fairly well executed, but there's nothing really new here. For me, the most annoying aspect was that the matriarch of the piece apparently forgot her guest's name and addressed her exclusively as "My dear." Still, it's worth a look.

Although Britain's Hammer Films is mostly known for their Gothic horrors (Frankenstein, Dracula, etc.), they also had a long series of "psycho" movies from "Scream of Fear" in 1962 to "Straight On 'til Morning" in 1973, which were in many ways even better (they definitely were by the 1970's) than their Gothics. This movie came fairly late in the cycle and perhaps isn't the best, but it is pretty decent. The story, as another reviewer said, is definitely "unusual". It isn't necessarily good and it isn't remotely believable, but it is certainly unusual. An American nurse (Stefanie Powers)comes to a secluded English mansion to care for the invalid adult son of a famous deceased composer. Right away she knows something is amiss. The sultry maid (Jane LaPortare)seems to have the guy addicted to drugs (and sex with her) and is using them to cruelly manipulate him. And SOMEBODY keeps playing the dead composer's music. . .The end is pretty absurd, but fun--and definitely surprising.

I had one big problem with this though. Apparently, they originally filmed this with some nude scenes by Stefanie Powers. Americans of a certain age will definitely remember Powers from the early 80's TV series "Hart to Hart" where she and Robert Wagner played husband-and-wife detectives. As Lionel Stander (who played the couple's butler "Max") said of her every week in the opening narration of the show: "She's GORGEOUS!!"-- which had to be the biggest understatement in the history of television. Anyway, some sick, depraved person seemed to have cut out her alleged nude scenes in the version I saw. Maybe some horny projectionist clipped them out and took them home for his, personal, um, use, but more likely it was someone trying to "protect society" (from what, God only knows). LaPortare (who is attractive, but a mere mortal compared to Powers) also seems to have received some unkind cuts, but she does have a brief nude swimming scene.

I don't mean to go on about this. It's still a worthwhile movie, but WHY must people do stuff like this?!

Good little mystery from Hammer films productions, a company more specialized in horror of tense thrillers than by this kind of movie. It is sensitive, delicate, made with much care from the director, not lousy at all. Do not expect action, violence but instead a character symphony helped by a beautiful and atmospheric score. This is not my cup of tea at all but as an Alan Gibson's films, one of his firsts, Alan Gibson who, like Peter Sasby, worked for Hammer in the seventies, when Terence Fisher, John Gilling and Roy Ward Baker began to reduce their work for the UK horror films industry. A little mystery film which is worth watching. But with some bloody scenes, even a very few, it could have easily been a British giallo; the settings were perfect for this.

One of my sci-fi/horror/fantasy reviews written 50 years ago: Directed by Alan Gibson; Produced by Michael Carreras for Hammer Films; Released in America by Warner Brothers. Screenplay by Jimmy Sangster and Alfred Shaughnessy; Photography by Paul Beeson; Edited by Chris Barnes; Music by Malcolm Williamson. Starring: Stefanie Powers, James Olson, Jane Lapotaire, Margaretta Scott and Joss Ackland.

Tight little, well-constructed old-fashioned "psycho" horror thriller, with Stefanie in an ultra-short white nightgown. Depicts interesting and ominous possessive/sexual relationships among the characters and features fine soft-focus, slow-motion nightmares, plus brief exploitation of Olson's paralyzed legs a la Tod Browning's "Freaks".

a film of good intentions. that is all. and it is not correct to search a guilty or to imagine a better version. because it represents only a demonstration of a period sensitivity and manner to realize a decent Gothic film. sure, the script seems have many possibilities and the acting is far to be high. but the good intentions are obvious. and the desire to translate on screen the nuances of story in the best manner. but this ambition is the cage for movie. so, after the long chain of disappointment, remains only the beginning and the end as reasonable parts. because the confusion is heavy mist and the clichés are so many. a film for fans of genre. that is all.