La nuit qui ne finit pas

Ellie and Michael (Hayley Mills and Hywell Bennett) are two strangers who meet, fall in love, and get married. Michael is a former chauffeur, and Ellie is an heiress worth millions. Obviously, her family is against the whole idea, even enlisting their attorney (George Sanders) to offer them big money for a quick divorce. This does nothing to deter these lovebirds, for their relationship is built of stronger stuff.

Enter Ellie's old friend, Greta (Britt Ekland), and things start to get interesting. Greta moves in with the young couple, causing a strain on the marriage. Odd occurrences begin chipping away at the tranquil atmosphere, giving way to a rising sense of dread.

ENDLESS NIGHT sets us up by pretending to be a love story with mysterious elements, then plunging us headlong into a story of greed, insanity, and murder. There's a truly unexpected, jaw-dropping twist in this film! All of the characters are wonderful, especially Ms. Mills, which is a good thing, since she carries most of the movie...

"Endless Night" follows working-class freewheeling chauffeur Michael (Hywel Bennett) who falls in love with a billionaire heiress Ellie (Hayley Mills). The two marry, and build a large estate on property in the English countryside known as Gypsy's Acre, which is purported by locals to be cursed land. After Ellie's relative Greta (Britt Ekland) arrives to stay, a series of bizarre events unfold, including ominous encounters with an elderly gypsy woman who roams the property.

Based on the Agatha Christie novel, director Sidney Gilliat takes the meat of Christie's novel and puts unique twinges on it that are reminiscent of Hitchcock (Bernard Herrmann's spooky score understates this). The film is admittedly slow, especially in exposition, and there are few quote-unquote thrills to be had, but I found this film strangely compelling in spite of its odd pacing.

There is a consistent sense of unease that permeates nearly every scene, although it's difficult to put your finger on what is exactly the cause. The photography in the film is fantastic, capturing the rolling landscapes and the cloudy skies surrounding the manor; this is punctuated by subtle scares that come in the form of various figures lurking below on the hillsides or in the woods, almost like indistinct figures in a painting. The film is at times reminiscent of English Gothic in its aesthetics, even though the house itself is very much "retro '70s" in both style and furnishings.

Solid performances from Hywel Bennett and Hayley Mills really shine here, with Mills being especially memorable as a good natured girl who happens to be a billionaire ("world's sixth richest!"). Britt Ekland is also great as the stalwart and fawning relative— her performance really comes full circle in the finale, which provides her the bulk of the role's dynamics, and she handles it fabulously. The conclusion to the film is fairly routine by contemporary standards, although I can honestly say that I didn't see the plot twists coming, so props to Christie and the filmmakers' handling of the material— I was definitely had by the film.

Overall, "Endless Night" is an enjoyable and well-acted picture that seems to have been forgotten in time. It is too slow to qualify as a full-blooded thriller, but there are tinges of a British psychothriller here with some genuinely bizarre and eerie moments that stand out among effective cinematography and a disquieting score. In spite of the film's lackluster pacing, it is unexpectedly transfixing, and manages to hold one's attention until the head twisting finale. 7/10.

The last film made by the illustrious Launder & Gilliat team is a psycho-thriller that desperately wants to be praised as "Hitchcockian" and even recruits Bernard Herrmann, Hitch's favourite composer, to write the score. Perhaps the Hitchcock film it most resembles, however, is "Frenzy" – both seem to be the work of ageing filmmakers trying to get "with it".

"Endless Night" is extremely faithful to Agatha Christie's source novel (it may be the closest-ever filming of one of her novels) but neither of the two protagonists seem to come across with the same conviction that they do in the book. Hayley Mills struggles with a difficult part (Ellie is a fairly insipid character) while Hywel Bennett somehow never convinces as the enigmatic Michael.

There's lots of fun spotting familiar faces in the supporting cast, including an uncredited Nicholas Courtney (the Brigadier from "Doctor Who") as the auctioneer. Per Oscarsson is good as the insightful architect Santonix, who guesses something of what is going on, although our admiration for him is lessened by the hideously vulgar house he builds (which all the characters acclaim as a masterpiece!) I can't help wondering what Dame Agatha's loyal fans made of this film; the setting in an idyllic corner of rural England is traditional enough but the atmosphere is a great deal darker than usual. The novel, written in 1967, represented quite a bold departure for the writer (and a successful one) but the film at times descends into banality. Having said that, the twee nature of Ellie and Michael's romance gives the conclusion much more impact and the final images are startling.

I won't say it's a bad film, but I have to believe the liberties taken with the adaptation of the story go well beyond the nudity and modern setting. (I will say that the house with the remote-controlled indoor swimming pool in the living room was a bit over the top.)

I will confess that I did not guess the direction the plot would take, but what was so disappointing was the profusion of loose ends and entirely pointless characters. Agatha didn't usually write them that way - everyone ended up with a role in the outcome of the story. Here we are presented with in-laws, neighbors, family friends, and a mysterious old woman --- all of whom have nothing at all to do with the resolution of the story. Most of them could have been omitted entirely and the story would have been essentially unchanged.

My DVD even featured an editing error: about 10 seconds of the film repeat precisely (when the girl's parents are observed getting back into their car to leave.)

There is also a broken window that is never explained, a ghostly appearance that is never accounted for or revisited, a car is observed to take an unusually long to get somewhere - but we are never given the significance. An architect seems to know things the audience does not -- yet no explanation is offered of how he knows them.

Like Agatha's best writing, characters and clues and complications pile up... but then they are inexplicably thrown away in favor of an unexpected, yet rather anticlimactic resolution.

I just watched Julia McKenzie in the recent adaptation of the Christie novel, inserting Miss Marple where she was originally absent. I clicked on the IMDb and Amazon to learn more about the production and found that there had been a 1971 movie which hewed more closely to the original. A purchase of a used DVD gave me pleasure for my money. It's interesting to see how different script writers turned and twisted the basic story lines and how the movies surprised and shocked the viewer. I won't repeat the comments that have already been said on this forum about this '71 film, but I will emphasize the value of seeing the opening minutes again to pick up fat clues that might be missed on first viewing -- the footsteps heard in the Van Gogh museum and the statement of the mother later that her son had experienced something significant. The movie just seems to sail along making one wonder what the mystery is, what the crime was, until the revelations that suddenly come toward the end. Talk about the technique of the unreliable narrator in mystery stories! By the way, Jon Tuska in his great critical work THE DETECTIVE IN Hollywood casually dismisses this movie as not very good. He's wrong.