This film is amazing, it's insane, and it's wonderful. You have to be suicidal and very intent on making a movie to take such risks to get something on film. Through red lights, up one way streets, scaring pedestrians, past the Arc de Triomphe, through the Louvre and up to the Basilique de Sacre Coeur at dawn in Paris... he never lets up for a moment, full speed through traffic lights, dodging buses and garbage trucks. It's only nine minutes long, but it never ceases to intrigue me. I've never seen an footage like it. Need for Speed underground Avant la lettre. Whether it really is a Ferrari 275 GTB he's driving an alpine A110 or whether the soundtrack is real is irrelevant. Even if it was done in a Parisian taxi, the footage is still amazing.


This is the type of film that some might say only becomes clear in the final minutes. I'd partially agree with that. A young man wakes from a 4 year long coma to discover that he murdered his fiancé and has been locked in a mental institution. His doctor, seeking to treat him, sends him to The House of Love for therapy. Once there he meets the other patients and is troubled by half realized memories and strange deja vu ... not to mention the murder of some of the other patients. I won't say any more than that plotwise. Andras Jones plays the lead, and I enjoyed his performance. I would have to admit that his acting is inconsistent throughout the film, but somehow, this makes his performance all the more endearing. The inconsistency seems to suit the storyline in a positive manner. Seth Green, who I strongly disliked before this film, has made me a fan. Beth Bates is, to be quite honest, pretty bad performance wise (though gorgeous in my humble opinion). In her defense, much of the little dialog she has, would be tough for even the most talented actress. All of the other actors do a good job. The score is wonderful, the type you'll remember after one viewing. The sets are nice, especially considering the budget, and the film is very well shot. You can probably find the DVD for 10 bucks. A real bargain in my opinion. This is the kind of film that you'll either love or hate. If you love it, you'll likely be left to ponder it for days. I said earlier that I would only partially agree with someone if they said that it only becomes clear in the end. It may become clear, but it raises more questions than an answer should. Bravo!


The story, which reminds me of awakening from a bad dream, makes for an interesting movie. The main character, Trevor Blackburn (Andras Jones), convicted for the murder of his fiancée, has been left in the care of psychiatrist Dr. Ek (Jeffrey Combs). As a result of Dr. Ek's treatment Trevor suffers amnesia. Viewer and main character alike are challenged with separating dream from reality as the main character pieces together his memories. There is an occult dimension in the movie but its significance is never elaborated in the open ended script. However, the script is elegant and leaves ample room for interpretation.

Rather disappointingly though, the atmosphere never builds dense enough to support the story. I blame this on the hallmarks of low budget production that shine through. Acting is wooden and the set decor and make up kitschy. There is not a single interesting camera angle throughout. However, the score is quite good, as was the opening credits.

Within the group of small budget horror movies I'd give this movie an eight, however, given that this is not a cult movie and there are so many better movies out there, I've settled on a 3.


I personally loved the movie. You may not figure it all out, in fact I'm

sure that you won't figure it all out. It's one of those movies... but it's

a GOOD ONE! Besides, Seth Green, Ted Raimi, and Jeffery Combs all rock!

As for scariness, I don't rate it very high, although there are plenty

of good scenes that are pretty freaky. Of course, not many films scare me much. I highly suggest seeing this movie, if it seems at all like the sort of

film you're into.


There was a film I reviewed a bit ago entitled "13 Seconds", in which your typical horror genre gets a confusing twist ending coupled with horrid acting and a bland plot. As you can tell, I wasn't a fan of this film and was momentarily turned away from cheap horror movies. "13 Seconds" garnered several awards, is recognized in the film community, but for me was just a sloppy film with the irritable inconsistent voice dub. I think that is what harmed this film the most  but then I gave up on my plight to avoid cheap horror films and decided to watch the equally low-budget horror/suspense/thriller film "The Attic Expeditions", and I must admit, I was rejuvenated. This film was a breath of confusing fresh air. From the sporadic, yet strong, opening, through the rest of this nonconsecutive film about magik (with a "K"), the philosophy of modern medicine, and perhaps love, I was hooked. From the films that I have watched lately, this was one that I was eager to start from the beginning and watch again. While I cannot say that director Jeremy Kasten has created a flawless film, he has impressed me by giving us a strong story with a limited budget. This was a film obviously loved by everyone involved and in my eyes has the ability to become a cult classic if watched by an open-mind audience.

We follow the story of Trevor Blackburn, who may or may not have killed his fiancé while performing a magik ritual. Due to possible insanity, he is operated on and forced to recuperate in a facility simply called "House of Love". It is in this "house" that Trevor continues to have flashbacks coupled with nightmares, coupled with sudden murders of the other tenants. He is observed, from a distance  through television monitors, by a Dr. Eck (played sinisterly by Jeffrey Combs) and his associate, Dr. Coffee (played by Ted Raimi). This give us the impression that perhaps this is not the place we assume, and that it is just a set-up by Eck for a more dutiful purpose. Then, quite classically, as we think we know the truth to this film, director Kasten gives us one last push of the unknown and before the screen our minds are shattered.

I think what appealed to me the most was that albeit this was a very low-budget film, the creators did everything possible to make this less cheap and more detail oriented. I loved the visual style of this film. The way that our characters acted, the way the interacted with each other, and their deadpan ability to bring the unknown to the surface. It was as if I was watching "Evil Dead" for the first time (not that I want to draw similarities  it was just a similar viewing experience). There were elements of Gilliam, mixed with Raimi, mixed with Nolan all rolled together. Although the international name for this film is "Memento 2", please do not connect the two. This film stands on its own. Kasten assembled a flawless cast with a surprising turn from Seth Green (playing a very Patrick Bateman character) and the always fun Jeffrey Combs. I even enjoyed the Kyle MacLachlan-esquire style of Andras Jones  then there was Ted Raimi, whom didn't almost fit within this film, but still made it fun to see him sweat. Alas, those eager to see Alice Cooper, he was only in it for a brief moment, though the special features claim he was a valuable asset to the production. I didn't see it. With this seemingly strong cast in place, it was up to the storyteller to get the rest in motion  and it happens successfully.

"The Attic Expeditions" is not a one-time-viewing film. I think what makes me rave so much about this film is the way the story was told, out of context, out of consecutive order, out of sanity. You cannot make an assumption about this film from just one viewing, one must go back  rewatch, and enjoy. I will say this much, it is not a film for everyone. The scenes can be unsettling and a bit disturbing since you do not quite fully know if he is in his mind or in ours. Rather disturbing actually. Kasten plays not only with the character's minds, but also with ours. "The Attic Expeditions" is one of those films that leaves the room either going, "gosh that was horrible", or wide open for discussion. For me, I needed someone to talk to. I wasn't sure what was real, and what was in Trevor's mind. That is what makes this film stand out. While there were some shots of a boom in some scenes, but again, that is what makes this low-budget film even better. Concentrate on what you cannot comprehend, and this will be a phenomenal film for you.

Overall, I gotta say that after a slew of mediocre Hollywood budget films, this was a volatile breath of fresh air. I challenge anyone that dislikes this film to ask "why" -- is it because you didn't understand the story or because it was cheaper than the mass produced films. With a film like "The Attic Expeditions", more chances are taken  the risks are higher, and the final product is worth a second viewing. As others have quoted, and I believe them, this is a horror film for those of us that pride ourselves on intelligence. It is smart, challenging, and grossly entertaining. I don't mind calling this film cheap because it entertained me mentally, and I will go back to rewatch to see if a second viewing would un-muddle the questions looming in my mind. I was impressed.

If I went insane, I would definitely choose Dr. Eck to ensure my return of sanity!

Grade: **** out of *****


If this is some hackneyed tribute to H. P. Lovecraft, it falls short. Really short. Those of you out there who have actually read Lovecraft will hear mention of Azathoth, the Old Ones, and seemingly blatant references to the Necronomicon. But does it make ANY sense, or add value to the plot? None. In fact the whole movie is a big tease.

Those reviewers who believe this film is for the "thinking man" and not for stupid people who can't understand its convoluted plot are being unfairly condescending. They probably didn't even catch the mumbling Lovecraft references because they were too busy not reading books and mistakenly thinking they understood the plot and everything in it. Good luck. A word for the MTV generation-- a good story is not a downfall in a film. Confusion and mindf*cking are not the signs of genius. It is a trick to make you think you are smarter than you are.

This film is not hard to understand, it is just disappointing once you figure out you wasted nearly 2 hours of your time thinking about it at all. It is purposefully confusing. If you want to spend your money on that, have at it.

The whole thing seems painfully staged. The dialogue is uncomfortably stinted like an adapted stageplay, or a bad attempt to gain atmosphere by copying the cadence in David Mamet's works on film. (Hint: It works for Mamet.) Normally Seth Green is great, but I get the feeling the director asked him to play the character as two dimensional as possible. (And very much a pasty rip-off of Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys, as mentioned before.)

Jeffrey Combs is the best part of this movie in his white suit and cool redneck sideburns. Too bad he has so little screen time. Raimi is not bad, either. But really folks, if you are looking for good content and strong story, don't be fooled. Don't be intrigued by the comments about how deep it is, that only the special few who use their brain can understand it. Don't think of it as a challenge. The story is simply uninteresting and indulgent.

It can be compared to Mulholland Dr., but only in the structural sense. Kasten ain't David Lynch.


Wow! This is one of the best movies I've ever seen! Beth Bates is amazing, and absolutely stunning!She is by far one of the most talented actresses I have ever seen. Though I have seen her in many other things besides this. She is extremely beautiful. Seth Green is also great, as he is in every movie he has been in. I would definitely recommend taking a look at this movie. This movie will freak you out. It is very scary, and will definitely make you question reality. Though this is a "low budget" film. The director does such a good job, that you can not even tell. This is definitely a great cult film...and if you like getting scared,i would definitely recommend seeing this movie


Trevor Blackburn(Andras Jones)is an amnesiac told by his psychiatric doctor, brain specialist Dr. Ek(Jeffrey Combs as eccentric as ever)that he was an unhinged, hard-to-handle criminal who was behind the murder of his lover Faith(Beth Bates). Ek sends him to the House of Love, supposedly a mental recuperation center for others with insanity issues. Ek wishes for Trevor to regain his buried memories and place his confounding images into their proper context. What Trevor doesn't know is that Ek has cameras throughout the house, set up to study him. He has also planted actors in the house to pose as mental patients so to increase Trevor's mental collapse. What's sad is that Trevor is really nothing more than a lab animal for Ek's experimentation..tampering with his mind until he snaps. What Ek is really after is a book of magick for which Trevor only knows it's whereabouts. We also get a peek inside the madness within Trevor's mind where we see weird, often homicidal, images. We get visions of a reoccuring dream Travis has of an attic with a trunk. That trunk symbolically represents his mind..inside it is what has been locked away from him. The mystery of that book is really at the heart of this crazy little movie.

Call it what you want. Wacky. Quirky. Colorful. Dizzying. Director Jeremy Kasten keeps the viewer on edge so we can experience the same hysteria like Trevor. The film even offers up the idea that Faith's being has came to life within Trevor's mind to get that book using someone in the House of Love as a host to kill him. Supposedly in that magick book is a key to immortality, but Trevor and Faith had to die together. But, you're never quite sure what is going on which is either part of the fun or agony depending on how much the viewer likes being pulled on the tail. Lots of B-actors here like Combs as the doctor, Ted Raimi as a writer who bares witness to Combs' madness and becomes threatened by him, Seth Green as "loony" Douglas who becomes a possible ally to Trevor.

The film is really a visual marvel on such a low budget and a credit to imaginative filmmakers who really want to mind-screw you.


By nature, I am lured into the crap of "STARZ ONLY HERE," their B-Flix of the holy hellish. You know, just bad horror flix. This one however, exceeded my expectations by a margain. I actually thought I'd guess what the ended would come out to and yet, I was wrong, mostly. Maybe I'm not the smartest of movie-geeks, but "the man" will often pull the wool over my face and present me with a climax I did not anticipate. Seth Green is the best and most believable character in this movie (though I can't deny Colms as he is a legend among films of this genre). The gore is adequate but mostly lacking in realism. The blood is bad in chemistry. The story isn't bad. Actually it's kind of good, but the production quality isn't what it could be, and so I'm a snob I guess. I gave it a 7, so I think it's worth watching just because I didn't guess the end...but I'm no genius, just a girl that loves blood and guts. And boobs...there were not enough boobs. Though there were some. Crazy girls don't count though, right? Don't pay 3.99 for this, but watch it if it's free...rock on!


When Trevor Blackburn awoke from a coma,he had no memory of his past.In search for answers,he breaks into the secret attic with another patient,as the others are being killed one by one.A darkly sinister doctor played by a horror regular Jeffrey Combs informed him that he'd been committed to a sanitarium for the criminally insane for the sacrificial murder of his fiancée.Thrown into a bizarre halfway house filled with strange psychos he plunges into a violent world of magic,nightmares,wild sexual escapades and torturous medical experiments.The above synopsis on the back of my tape sounded pretty good,so I finally decided to check this film out."The Attic Expeditions" is a pretty unusual horror flick.It contains a decent amount of violence and nudity.The plot is interesting as it showcases plenty of unique twists and turns,but in the end becomes extremely confusing.8 out of 10.


Whatever your opinion of this movie, there is one universal truth... Insanity. None of the movie is real, there is no magik, no murders, no book, no Faith. This is simply a tumultuous journey through the mind of an insane man. Stop trying to figure it out and look at it exactly as it is. The only constant is insanity obviously fabricated by the mind of a mental patient. At the very end of the movie they show two nurses in what can only be a mental hospital, No Doctor Ek. The nurses are not guessing, but sure that the patient will not wake up, not to say that he cannot wake up, but he is obviously sedated or heavily drugged, which rules out any possibility of a coma as there is no visible life support. There are no scars on his head thus no brain surgery. Think Identity only the personalities do not die when they are killed, all these people are in his head with the exception of the nurses who are indeed real(paranoid schizophrenia), one personality Doctor Eck knows it enough to diagnose it, but the personality called Dr. Ek has an ulterior motive, aka the book of magik, therefore Trevor has no reason to believe that any of the people are not real. Overall this movie was entertaining and well done if you ask me, you can certainly say it has some very good discussion about it, which I am sure was intended.


Me and some friends rented this... "Why?" I hear you ask... We thought it was fate that had lead us to this cinematic piece of art. Little did we know that it in fact, actually did (believe it, or not) SUCK! I have seen some bad movies in my time... but this is without a doubt the worst ever. It actually made "Tale of the Mummy", Trance (aka Kiss of the Mummy w/ Christoffer Walken) and any given Mr. Ed episode look like cinematic art that could surpass each and everyone of the Lord of the Rings Movies.... My movie-taste feels raped, and it's unsettling to know that money was paid to watch it :-( ... That's probably the most kind words I can use to describe that thing I refuse to call a movie...


Seth Green took hold of the screen in every scene he was in. Some of his character's lines could have NEVER been pulled off by any one else. Another thing that set this movie off for me was not only Green's character's line but the delivery. He did not just give a line, he punched them to the viewer. His vibrancy and energy flowed magically.

I have to say I was happily surprised by this movie. I original rented a) Because it looked to be scary, and I love scary/thriller movies; b)Seth Green.

Plus to watch Seth Green try to kiss another man just made my day! Seth really made this movie for me.

If you have not seen it do!


I think this movie is just a fun ride -it's not meant to be a "thinking mans horror film" as I've understood it, as it probably wouldn't have had so many goofy elements -it's supposed to be an entertaining fun ride. it twists and turns, but, as the previous review mentions -nothing that will make you lose track of what is going on- which is a strong point for the movie -not against it. Something Fightclub couldn't manage, as it always fails to hold water upon further inspection. Seth Green does it well as the goofy "sidekick" you're not sure you can trust, and the rest of the cast is equally eccentric. Not a film for the fan of mainstream flicks, but if you want something a bit out of the extraordinary, this might be the film for you.


OK. This movie started out to be okay at first. You got a guy that has been "supposedly" in a coma for the past four years after he killed his fiancé during some weird ritual. He wakes up in a mental hospital with no recollection of what happened let alone where he his or what he did. SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!! Dr. Ek (very weird guy and mediocre acting skills) explains to him what he did and then sends him to this house called the House of Love. Here he meets all kinds of strange characters. He starts having nightmares after his first night about going into the attic of this place and finding a locked trunk, but someone is inside. He opens it and they pull him in. Well eventually, he finds out that this is really his old house where he and his fiancé used to live before he killed her. He keeps having the nightmares (thus explaining the name of the movie) and one by one his "Friends" at the house get murdered. MORE SPOILERS SPOILERS CONTINUED!!!! It turns out that all his fellow mental patients are really actors just trying to get him to relive or redo his ritual so Dr.EK can get the special book that he used so he can be the all-powerful doctor EK!! END OF SPOILERS!!!!!!!! Basically this film repeats itself throughout the movie and generally ends up being very stupid and confusing. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!!!!! Wanna know the big twist in this one, he was really asleep the whole time!!!!! Not even worth renting.


This film was a nice surprise as i had heard of it on various websites but only mangaged to see this a few months ago, If u havent seen it, its a must as Jeffery Combs plays another crazy doctor, Sam Raimi makes an apperence, and Seth Green makes a good Crazy guy, all in all give it a try, u wont be disapointed


This movie didn't make a lot of sense but if you pay attention you'll understand the ending. Most people cannot do this because they are to slow to keep up with the Bachelor and Survivor reality shows. I'm sick of reading people comment and rave about sorry movies like Spiderman and rip independent horror movies like this. There are a few twists so if you get lost while watching Weakest Link avoid this. To me it doesn't get better than this. I like independent movies and I like horror movies but any movie that has Jeffrey Combs, Seth Green and Alice Cooper is my kind of movie. Definitely rent this is if you are a fan of Jeffrey Combs.


The Attic Expeditions is painful on viewers who demand to have everything sorted out for them in sane, palpable order. Its plot is coy, but definitely not vague.

Sure, it's a horror movie, but the paranoia and the absurdity come first. Few comedies have so satisfying a sense of humor.

The vivid dollhouse-like color schemes are reminiscent of Edward Scissorhands, but the surreal nature of the film's universe is a schizophrenic A Life Less Ordinary.

If you shy away from nudity or language, shy away from here...otherwise, give your mind this gentle frappe and thank me afterwards.


One of the worst I've seen... I'm trying to figure out which audience this was made for: a lot of nudity, a dumb story, bad acting, characters you don't care about, bad premise, bad direction, etc. I'm beginning to think they were trying to target people with low IQs, because they basically show you the beginning of the movie all over again at the end, SHOWING you what you didn't figure out... Stay away from it, it's trash.


If you haven't seen this superb film - put it to the top of your "must view" list! Featuring two of Britain's best character actors, the late Beryl Reid and the late Harry Andrews, this scintillating black comedy is based on Joe Orton's wonderful play of the same name. Reid is marvellous as aging nymphomaniac Kath and Harry Andrews provides a superb foil as her roue brother Ed, who both attempt to secure the sexual services of their libidinous lodger, Sloane (played by Peter McEnery). Set in an eerie graveyard lodgehouse and with Alan Webb as their grubby father this brilliant film has gained cult status since its release over 30 years ago and is the only film I can watch - and enjoy - repeatedly.


I first saw EMr.S as a teenager who had just come out of the closet. As a child I was a fan of '60s horror films (Carradine, Cushing, et.al.) and black comedies (e.g., "No Way to Treat a Lady") and suspense/murder ("Eye of the Cat" or "Wylie", "What Happened to Aunt Alice?", "Daddy's Gone a Hunting", "Who Killed Teddy Bear?"). EMr.S, at least as I remember it after 20 years, combined those genres. The title character, handsome and bi-sexual, added the homo-eroticism that made for a very happy young gay movie fan indeed. It also led me to learn that the Brits were years ahead of Hollywood in the treatment of gay characters in movies, and I now count "Who Killed Sister George?" and "The Leather Boys" as other personal favorites.


Have watched this film many times and enjoy it just as much as the first time,a mark of a good film.Joe Orton certainly had a strange sense of humour very evident in this black-comedy.A must see if never seen.Perhaps immoral,so what the blazes its entertaining to say the least.Great performances from the cast.


This is an unusual movie, and could well, in time, turn out to be a classic. It concerns 7 siblings left to fend for themselves in a big house after their beloved Mother dies. They bury the corpse in the back garden, and never tell anyone, because they are all under-age and fear the orphanage..

Even if dead, Mother becomes a religious mentor for the children, her thoughts being "channeled" through one of the girls in ritual, late night sessions.

They seem to manage pretty well, but things turn out ugly when the rambling, long lost "father" returns to take over the household. He wins them over, manipulates them, steals Mother's life-savings, and in a gripping finale, reveals to the children the terrible secret Mother has hidden from them.

It's a quite gruesome film, emotionally draining and heartless, an obvious comparison would be "Oliver Twist", or perhaps a dark fairytale from the brothers Grimm... At first, before the father arrives, I thought it was a Christian parable, where the mother represented the dead Jesus, and the children the acolytes and worshippers. But 50 minutes into the proceedings, it turns into something else. From then on, it's anybody's guess! Still, this ambiguity befits the story and keeps you on your toes throughout, until the sorry end.

Jack Clayton's direction is good, if rather literary, the house is a spooky, claustrophobic menace, while the child actors are uniformly excellent. You wouldn't believe young children could perpetuate audience interest in a melodramatic story like this, but, like in that other classic "the Secret garden", they do. Brilliant acting! Dirk Bogarde is supposed to be quietly menacing and evil, and he is exactly that.

Beware though, this is definitely not a film for children!


Among the filmography of the great Jack Clayton, OUR MOTHER'S HOUSE ranks with ROOM AT THE TOP, THE INNOCENTS and THE PUMPKIN EATER. He has a master's hand to deal with the smallest details. His work with children is unsurpassed. Here we have the splendid Pamela Franklin (The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie) and Mark Lester(Oliver in Carol Reed's Oliver) plus a sterling performance by Dirk Bogarde. The film is, clearly, an ancestor of THE CEMENT GARDEN but it creates a world impossible to emulate. In my list of films that changed my life, it goes hand in hand with ROSEMARY'S BABY, APARTMENT ZERO, THE CONFORMIST and BLOW UP.


From the first scene of the film one can already tell that there is fine cinematography. We see a girl walking the street of a suburban part of London and immediately one knows that this is a film different to many others  it's slow, it's silent, and still it's intriguing and exciting. Accompanied by an equally great musical score by Georges Delerue, Jack Claytons direction is outstanding. He presents eight children whose sick mother passes away one morning. Upon their close relationship on the one and their fear of being torn apart from each other at the other side, the children decide to keep on living `normally', as if their mother was still alive. They manage to keep up a cover story for teachers and neighbors while their relationship gets even closer. As expectable with children these age (ranging from, I'd guess, ages 3 to 12), they create their rituals (the German translation of the title is `Every evening at 9 o'clock') and manage to find a way to keep in touch with their world `before'  when the beloved mother was still live. They achieve that aim by mixing up religious belief with their childrenlike, yet never naïve `rationality'. But of course, their secret cannot be kept forever or can it? Dirk Bogarde is great in his role because he convincingly shows the two sides of his character: Loving at one part, but altogether selfish. But credits must go to the incredible cast of children whose performances draw the viewer into the story and force him to stay there. It is one of those rare films were the audience develops real sympathy for the figures. The ending, though probably not all too surprising, is the highlight of the picture and contains a great deal of melancholy. One wonders how the story would continue  but on the other hand, everything that needs to be said is said. As other comments already stated, not a film for children, but one of the best film about children ever made; it's goal was to achieve an insight into the world of a childs mind, and it succeeds brilliantly.


I saw this not-well-known movie when I was a little child. That night I couldn´t sleep believing my mother was going to die. Years later, as a teenager I saw it again......this time I thought I was a mature person and nothing would happen. Big mistake!!!!!!!!!! Another sleepless night!!!!!!!!! At the age of 27 I saw the movie again. This time, I said, I'm going to prove myself it's not gonna shock me as before. Another big mistake!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The movie is shown on TV via TCM Channel (in Astra)every month. I have taped the movie and it's one of my dearest treasures. But it's hard to see it again. Everytime I decide to see it again I know I'm gonna feel so bad that I better not think about it twice! You could think this is some kind of masochism or self-mental-injury...but I don´t think so. Our Mother House is just a brilliant movie. And yes, I also consider it's a gem waiting to be discovered and release in a excellent DVD Special edition. So much has been said about it here. A drama? A horror movie? The loss of childhood?...everything it's true. The movie atmosphere is so dark and blue that you can feel how those children feel. The children do a fine job as well as Dirk Bogarde and Yootha Yoice (the later Mrs. Roper in the cult sitcom Man about the House). I've never read the book but the movie is a must see!!!!!!!!!! As some users say, this is a movie about children...but NOT for children. My own experience taught me that some movies can be traumatic...........But I wonder how the director and actors managed to deal with this story without disturbing the children. Did the children notice what was the story about? Specially in the final scene. A big question I hope can be answered in a future DVD release!!!!!!!!!!! Follow my advice.............get a chance and see it.


I was actually an extra in this film, as the school scenes were filmed at my junior school, St Leonards Church of England School in Chelsham, Surrey. I remember having to wear my best school uniform and do as I was told. I was 8 years old, I suppose, and it was all very exciting with the lights and the trailers and all the people buzzing around. I don't remember whether we were allowed to meet the stars; I somehow doubt it!

This is a great film, very atmospheric, very spooky, and totally believable - kids in the 1960s were obviously very resourceful (and full of very odd ideas). Needless to say, I wasn't allowed to watch the film until I was much older than when I was in it.


At the beginning of the sixties ,Jack Clayton made a fine adaptation of "the turn of the screw",called "the innocents" which featured P.Franklin too.This could be called "more innocents "but there's a strong difference between the two works.Although "our mother's house" verges on fantastic,there's nothing irrational,nothing supernatural here.THat's what we can call a miracle of a movie:because it sounds like a horror and fantasy movie without all the genre gimmicks .So people who're looking for gore,special effects and other paraphernalia,please pass by.If you enjoy strong screenplays,first-class performances and masterful direction,this is a must.

Eight children whose mother's just passed away want to go on with their life as if nothing happened.Besides ,they do believe that their mother is still with them,and Pamela Franklin 's rendering is absolutely stunning when she acts as some kind of medium:far from the usual clichés -as you can see in "ghost" for instance-,she will give you goose pimples.This mother will remain a mystery,maybe a saint steeped in piety,maybe somebody much worse than a goody-two-shoes,as Charlie eventually claims.

Charlie is masterfully portrayed by Dirk Bogarde who was in his more fruitful period with such masterpieces as "accident" "king and country" "la caduti dei degi" "morte a Venezio".He keeps people waiting for he only appears after about forty minutes.But when he's on the screen ,the chemistry between the thespian and the children is so obvious that there's no hiatus.At first sight,he resembles some adult Peter Pan (hairdo,swagger,clothes,not to forget the name:Hook!).Here ,where Spielberg dismally failed when he made "Hook" ,Jack Clayton with a much smaller budget had already succeeded in portraying an adult/child, more than twenty years before.But further acquaintance will show that an adult can no longer remain a child .When Charlie is a man again,tragedy is waiting around the corner.

"Our mother's house" is so rich a movie that you could stay all night talking about it:a twilight glow shines on an autumnal suburb and turns into absolute darkness for the last sequence.Georges Delerue's score is simply marvelous and enhances the perfection of the pictures.

A strong influence on the French movie "la fracture du myocarde".

See it at any cost.


I saw this about 14 years ago in a stroke of luck ( a local TV station had picked up a print, and my mother, horror buff that she is, decided to tape it), and the film has stuck with me ever since. It's not your typical horror film, and has more of a tragic element which was so very common to films of the genre in this particular era. The dark and dirty imagery only serves to enhance the premise, and the shrine the Hook children build to their mother is downright creepy. The children do a very decent job of portraying children ( something that is increasingly rare these days) and Dirk Bogarde does a fantastic job of portraying their scumbag father. And to boot, we've got a heavy incest theme going on. If you can get a hold of this one, go for it: it's very much of its time, but the opportunity is well worth any trouble.


This is a good little movie that heavily relies on its uneasy atmosphere. The movie is also greatly carried by its cast, both the adult as the children's.

The story is simple yet effective. The story perfectly sets up an uneasy atmosphere that is dark and sober. The story is unusual and original as well. The movie can perhaps be best described as a dark drama/thriller. The fact that the movie is both unusual and original is probably the reason why this movie unfortunately isn't any better known.

The character are perfectly portrayed in the movie and play a great role in the movie its story. The movie is especially carried by the children cast of the movie, who play the most significant and biggest role in the entire movie. The young characters are all both realistic as powerful. Every characters has its own strong personality and they are what make this movie always interesting and never boring to follow, even though the pace itself isn't always terribly high.

But the movie also has a good adult cast that unfortunately is perhaps a bit underused at times. Dirk Bogarde plays a great role in the movie but unfortunately his character is introduced at least 15 minutes too late in to the movie. Once his character is introduced in to the story the movie takes more form and becomes even more intriguing to follow. It was also great to see Yootha Joyce in the movie, who I only knew from the British comedy series "George and Mildred". She is a great actress and really gets to show her skills in this movie.

The movie handles some intriguing, original and uneasy themes and the movie handles all those themes on its own very special way. It makes the movie a both original as well as memorable movie to watch.

Definitely worth seeing, when you get the opportunity to.

8/10


I saw this as a small child and even at such a young age, this movie impacted my soul, and I've never forgotten it, nor it's title. I had been looking to purchase the movie for years, however, I found it was never released for VHS or DVD production. I find that to be a travesty because if you don't stumble on a channel playing it somewhere, you'll never see it again, and for some of us that has become the case. I've searched AMC(American Movies Classics) Southest USA schedule for the past year, and TMC (Turner Classic Movies) Southeast USA schedule as well on a monthly basis, to see if they are showing it down here. They have not and are not. I found they have a different movie lineup in other parts of the USA, and have shown this up north I believe. I find this heartbreaking. Apparently the SE has been forgotten. After discovering these channels had aired this movie up north last year, perhaps even this year, according to their website schedule, I sent them numerous emails requesting they please bring the movie down here and show it. Sad to say, my emails have gone unanswered by AMC & TCM both, and they never have. Has anyone taped this, VHS or DVD? Can anyone help? Still hopeful...


This was on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) a few days ago, and after all the great comments I saw about this movie, I didn't hesitate to tape it on DVD. It wasn't what I had expected in the least, and until Dirk Bogarde turns up, it's quite an average movie. But it definitely does improve after that.

The general gist of the film is that seven children who fear the orphanage bury their mother in the garden after she dies of illness, so that no one will find out. For the next 30 minutes, the film revolves around how the children survive on their own, and how they support each other (one of these methods being 'mothertime', where they have séances in the garden as they try to contact their dead mother). Then Dirk Bogarde turns up, and he claims to be their father. Most of the children take to him immediately, but the eldest doesn't, and this leads to all sorts of complications for the family, leading up to the climax (which is actually the best thing about this film).

The film, when you look at it closely, is, in fact, quite good. It's got a good storyline, good acting, and great scenery. If you're looking for a horror flick, look elsewhere, but if you're looking for a subtle, well acted melodrama, then look no further!

Definitely worth a viewing!


Not many people know that Our Mother's house is owned by TCM. If you go to there web site you can vote to have it released on DVD. You can also ask them to show it on television. They will forward it to their programming department. You can vote on many movies on TCM to be released on to DVD. When they get enough votes they forward this to their distributors.You can even vote for films not owned by TCM because they work with the AFI. The American Film Institute. You can also vote for The Third Secret or other movies to be released. Please take the time to vote for Our Mother's House to be released on DVD. They will only allow one vote per computer!


So different to most films. This one really does allow the viewer to suspend disbelief. Bogarde is young here and his performance is typical if not brilliant. The film is stolen by the child actors and the director all of whom make wonderful impressions. A weird one parent family then the mother dies. So closely knit are they all and so brainwashed with religious belief, that the children decide to lock themselves away from the world. Then the estranged husband appears with disastrous consequences. Even the ending is excellent


One of the best psychological horror films ever made, if you liked "The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane" (1976) you will love "Our Mother's House", which takes a similar premise, then adds some ambitious "Lord of the Flies" elements and throws in the production design of "Girly".

The 1976 film featured thirteen-year old Jodie Foster menaced by Martin Sheen while keeping the death of her father secret so she could maintain her independence. "Our Mother's House" has seven children working to keep their mother's death a secret. They are menaced by the arrival of Dirk Bogarde who they believe to be their father. Bogarde agrees to help them keep the secret, recognizing an opportunity to ingratiate himself with the children and pilfer their mother's estate.

Like Foster, the oldest child (Margaret Brooks-daughter of the screenplay writer) recognizes the threat but the others are taken in for a wide assortment of reasons; mostly just the desire for the security of having a parent in their lives. Daughter number two (Pamela Franklin) develops a father-figure crush and pulls off the best performance of her career. If you wonder what all the fuss is about concerning this actress (who never really became a major star but has a huge cult following) you need to see her nail this challenging role. Her character undergoes enough transformations for ten films and Franklin is believable throughout the process.

Brooks is very good also, watch for the death-bed scene at the start of the film. There is a close-up of her face at the moment she first realizes that her mother has just passed away. It may have been a happy accident, a lucky moment during one of the takes, but the editor would have flipped when he saw how perfect it was.

The three girls in the family generally outshine the boys in this production, although a visiting schoolmate named Louis (Parnum Wallace) provides a couple moments on camera that are on the same level as those of the girls.

Some may dispute whether this is actually a horror film (as they do with "The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane). It has some Hitchcock elements, a bleak old mansion, dead bodies, séances, and moments of intense suspense but no monsters or gore.

The mother was a vicar's daughter who rebelled by taking a succession of lovers, repenting after her seventh child and turning into religious nut case. Bogarde's character Charlie had married her long ago and allowed her to keep giving each new child his name. Bogarde's performance is also top notch, convincingly playing against type as a fast-talking working class grifter.

Director Jack Clayton, ("Room at the Top," "The Pumpkin Eater" and "The Innocents"-where he directed an even younger Pamela Franklin) keeps his young cast firmly restrained and they come across as very real-especially for characters in a very off-kilter family. Julian Gloag's source novel placed more emphasis on the children's twisted decent into madness. Clayton appeared to be heading in the same direction but allows Charlie's arrival to pull everyone back into a relative (if temporary) normalcy.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


Criminally under - rated,cinematographer/director Mr Jsck Clayton created some excellent intelligent atmospheric films that lovers of British cinema look on with special affection.His 1967 "Our mother's house" is a fine example of his sensitivity with child actors and his flair for looking beyond the obvious in casting his adult roles.Mr Dirk Bogarde,for instance,might not have come immediately to mind for the role of a feckless working - class Londoner,but Mr Clayton knew exactly what he was capable of,and Bogarde's performance so moved Signor Visconti that after watching "Our mother's house" he chose him for the life - changing "Death in Venice". Children are seldom the helpless,adult - dependent creatures they are often taken for.Perforce they can be resilient,resourceful and strong. Failing to notify the authorities about the death of their mother,the Hook children hope to escape the dreaded "Orphanage"(much more likely to be put "in care" - probably a fate even worse)and keep the family together. Unfortunately their absent father turns up and threatens their familial security. His profligate behaviour eventually alienates them all with a truly shocking result. Claustrophobic,alternately gloomy then harshly - lit,"Our mother's house" is a film about children for adults. Uniformly well - acted,it is dominated by Mr Bogarde who steals it effortlessly without ever seeming to.He upstages nobody,doesn't appear until 45 minutes into the film,but brings about such a change of direction as to leave one breathless.It is a brilliantly selfless performance that deserves to be far better - known. I unhesitatingly recommend it to anyone looking for some British movie a bit outside the box.


Seven children continue in "Our Mother's House" after she dies in this 1967 film starring Dirk Bogarde, Pamela Franklin, and Mark Lester, and directed by Jack Clayton. A very ill, religious woman, the mother of seven, dies suddenly at home. Her children, afraid of being separated, bury her in the garden and continue to live as if nothing had happened, forging her monthly annuity check. One day, their long-absent father (Bogarde) reappears.

Based on a novel by Julian Gloag, Haya Harareet (Heston's Ben Hur co-star) and Jeremy Brooks fashioned an excellent screenplay, beautifully directed by Jack Clayton, a true master (The Innocents, The Pumpkin Eater). With a dark, spooky atmosphere inside a big old house, he creates the world in which the children live, one where they care for one another, pray, and communicate nightly with their mother. When Charlie Hook, their father arrives, that all changes, and the world comes rushing in. At first, Charlie is what is needed - his presence means they're safe from the outside world, but gradually, even his supporters among the children begin to see that he's a danger.

Clayton manages to bring in an incestuous undertone without overtly showing any incest - in the days when directors needed to adhere to certain codes, they called upon their imaginations. It made film more subtle and definitely more interesting to watch.

The acting is superb. Bogarde is in top form as the at first lovable Charlie, who, as he does in "The Servant," gradually becomes more sinister. Pamela Franklin is marvelous as Diana, one of the older children; all of the children are excellent - Clayton was no stranger to directing children, and his deft hand is shown here.

Perhaps not a well-known film in the U.S., "Our Mother's House" will make a lasting impression.


This excellent film is a forgotten jewel. An intriguing story about the dark side of the childhood, but also a poetic look to a group of boys and girls who decided to continue his life as usual, as if his mother were among them and not dead. So, the undesired return of a father (or maybe not the father of all of them, perhaps) breaks the normal life (in the point of view of the children) that they live. So the father (Dirk Bogarde) should pay for to be an stranger in some kind of closed paradise. The direction of Jack Clayton (remember The Innocents) is perfect, and so is Dirk Bogarde, in the best moment of his career of actor.


The always watchable Dirk Bogarde is in top form as a nasty piece of fatherhood here. But the children match him for acting ability, I must say. Even the youngest girl, who is Phoebe Nicholls of Brideshead Revisited (TV) fame some years later. Everyone in this quietly creepy film does a good job with their characters. This is just the sort of intelligent story the British do so well. It captures its period skillfully, and I found myself wanting to "enter" the story to help the characters out! One really feels for the children's plight. Yet, they ARE capable creatures. (They put one in mind of English books such as E. Nesbit's The Wouldbegoods, not that the story is nearly as pleasant, but because the children are so good at looking after themselves independently.)

I have always found these atmospheric English films far superior to slam-bang American entertainment. Not to everyone's taste, perhaps, but that makes it more fun, too. Whistle Down the Wind comes to mind as a similarly enjoyable essay on quirky childhood experiences.


I actually saw this movie as a child of about 10, and I loved how absolutely scary it was. I must say, that I wouldn't recommend that very young viewers are allowed to see it, as it could terrify and leave lasting fears in them.

This is a very dark, very desperate movie, not to be missed. The acting is extremely accomplished, especially considering the ages of most of the cast.

Lighting is used extremely effectively, making the viewer wonder what is coming next, or perhaps what might be being missed that might be essential.

This movie still sticks in my mind 36 years later as one of the most effective dramas I've seen.


I find the film hauntingly beautiful. The cinematography and especially the music is wonderful. It evokes childhood and early adolescence brilliantly, Pamela Franklin gives an especially powerful performance, as does Dirk Bogarde and Yootha Joyce. The sense of place is very powerful too. I love the dark, disturbing settings of the dilapidated Victorian house (long since demolished). I would like to find out more about the filming of it - I believe it was filmed in East Croydon - there is an allusion to it in Dirk Bogarde's autobiography? I've also tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain Julian Gloag's book, but it appears to be out of print.


True this movie is close to a classic but it's so darkly chilling and gloomy that it was hard to tolerate. The performances of some of the kids were so intense that I wonder how they were effected. Talk about child actors spiraling downward. That poor little Gerty must be a basket case. One reviewer shares my sentiments in perceptively calling 'Our Mother's House' an "ancestor of 'The Cement Garden'." As a child my daughter was traumatized when I took her to see 'Cement Garden' and she still reminds me that it damaged her psyche. So, despite excellent portrayals by talented, professional young actors I would advise against exposing children, even horror/thriller jaded kids of today, to this dark, creepy story.


I really liked this old sixties film, im not a big fan of films with just children in, so i could easily of turned this off half way through the film but im glad i didnt. Set in an old large London house, for the early parts of the film the kids of left alone to be kids, but the films gets interesting when Charlie Hook played by Dirk Bogarde turns up. The kids behaviour gets worse and the story line picks up. It might be obvious not long after he turns up what he is after but its still a good film. Night as good as "Night Of The Hunter" which it made me think of.

Yootha Joyce is more well known for George and Mildred and it always interesting for me to see actors more well known for TV sit-com rolls working in a film.

Try and see this if you can


Having only seen the last fifteen minutes on a rare TCM broadcast, the film is unmistakably the work of a master, Jack Clayton. He'd already directed the classic The Innocents (1961) with Deborah Kerr. Later he'd direct the cult favorite, Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983). He only directed ten films, but his deft touch is recognizable.

The impending suspense and doom as the child question their father isn't relieved by the climax ... one has no idea what will happen but it will be a shock. The great films maintain such suspense and the greatest films pay off without seeming cheap. One day, we can only hope, one day this will be shared in a DVD release.


Try to see this on as big a viewing screen as you can, as the film is often quite dark, and Crawford is so beautiful in it you'll want a good look. I loved it!

In this second screen version of W. Somerset Maugham's morality tale, "Rain", Joan Crawford gives a performance that knocks the rest of the cast off the screen.

First made as a silent with Gloria Swanson, the stageplay "Miss Sadie Thompson" had been a controversial broadway hit, and young Joan Crawford fought hard to get the coveted role of Sadie. She shed her drawing room manners and designer gowns, researching the part by visiting the red-light district of San Diego to see what the street-walkers of the day looked and sounded like. Her appearance in the film was considered offensive for it's realism, and the film stiffed at the box office. Sadly, it's financial failure relegated Crawford to years of popular but light-weight "respectable" roles, before her Oscar-calibre performances of the 1940's and 50's.

But for audiences of today, the film is worth reconsidering. The other performers are wooden and stilted but Crawford's performance, embarrassingly natural in 1932, leaps off the screen. The topic matter that was so controversial, even offensive, in the early 1930's is not a hard sell to modern audiences: that bible-thumpers aren't always the good guys, and "sinners" aren't always so bad.

Further, the feminist aspect of the film is clearer today. As Sadie makes her way around the Pacific, a fun-loving free-spirit often one step ahead of the law, it's the fact that she's a female that draws the ire of the puritanical fire-and-brimstone missionaries: a young man would have gotten away with it.

And for us post-Woodstock viewers this touching story strikes a familiar chord: of the harmless, light-hearted kid who hurts no-one but whose very existence is offensive to the powers that be.

And it must fairly be said that when she was a young (I think she's about 25 when she made this) she is a strikingly beautiful babe, heavy make-up or not.

If you've ever written Crawford off as "man-ish" or "bitchy" because of roles she did later in her life, check out this movie and take a look at the sexy, vivacious girl who was once described by F. Scott Fitzgerald as "the personification of the American flapper"!

I found the film fascinating (that's why I went on to look up all the above information).


Despite some hammy acting, especially by a fledgling Joan Crawford, I easily give this movie a 9/10 rating.

"The Code" refers (in case you don't know) to the morality code put into place in mid-1934 which clamped down very hard on what could be portrayed in the movies. After the code, women that were off-color in any way, shape, or form had to be punished, redeemed through atonement/repentance, or killed off.

However, in "Rain", Joan Crawford plays Sadie Thompson, a prostitute working on a South Pacific (?) island whom all the service-men seem to adore. They treat her like a friend, a comrade, not a lowly piece of scum or mere sexual object. This, in and of itself, was refreshing to see. And it was from 1932 no less!

A group of missionaries are waylaid on Sadie's island due to a torrential rain storm. The head missionary takes an instant dislike to Sadie's character (I believe he is threatened by her free-loving and live-loving spirit), and has the governor of the island extradite her back to the United States, to be prosecuted for some crime that the film does not clearly delineate.

There is also a soldier who loves Sadie and who wants to marry her. He knows she's a prostitute. He's had her and so have most if not all of his buddies, but he loves the person she is and wants to spend the rest of his life with her. He is taken to the brig for a week for some petty offense, and during this week the head missionary convinces (brainwashes) Sadie into believing she is a filthy, sinful creature who must pay for her sins. The soldier cannot believe the transformation in Sadie when he gets out of the brig. The interesting thing to me is that as the "reformed" Sadie, Joan Crawford is MUCH more beautiful (less makeup, more subdued clothing, softer-focus lighting) than as the lurid Sadie, yet the soldier sees she is much LESS than she was before. He sees the INSIDE of Sadie, and sees she is a mere shell of her former self. He tries to persuade her to go away with him, rather than return to the U.S. to "pay for her sins" as the missionary has convinced her she must.

I want to avoid spoilers, so I'll just say that events then take place that make Sadie realize she is just fine as she is, and that the missionary was a hypocrite of a human being.

It blows me away that the message of this 72-year-old film is more daring than most messages we get from modern-day films. We are still stuck in a post-code madonna/whore view of women that was clearly not in place in the early 30s.

Despite the not-best acting in the world, this movie is a must-see for its amazing story and portrayal of a real woman!


For reasons that likely have much to do with her self-perceptions, insecurities, and desires for her screen image, Joan Crawford never liked her performance in this fine film. I do not know why; she was never better. The first talkie of the classic Jeanne Eagels' play "Rain", it was effective in every way even though it uses many old-time editing cuts and inserts. They actually worked, and I liked the direction very much, too. Huston was fine as the sanctimonious but sincere preacher trying to convert the "loose woman" Sadie Thompson - but in the end loses the battle, something I wish was shown, but then it wasn't in the play or book so I shouldn't expect it. A fine film, and the antique-type music adds to the effect. See the IMDb review of the serviceble Rita Hayworth version, "Sadie Thompson", and the horrid movie on the life of the actress, "Jeanne Eagels" which contains scenes with Kim Novak trying to recreate the stage play.


Joan Crawford was reportedly not happy with her performance in Rain although for the life of me, I can't figure out what she had to be ashamed about. In a few years Rain could not possibly have been made due to the imposition of The Code where no man of the cloth could be anything less than decent.

Perhaps Crawford was unfortunately compared to Jeanne Eagels on stage and Gloria Swanson in a silent film adaptation which starred Lionel Barrymore as the sex crazed Reverend Davidson. Still Crawford's Sadie Thompson need not take a backseat to anyone else's.

Somerset Maugham wrote the original novel and John Colton adapted it into a play performed on both the London and Broadway stages. Rain is a deceptive work, at first glance it appears quite dated, but in reality its quite relevant for today.

My favorite character in this is Guy Kibbee's Horne who runs the hotel/ trading post on that tropical South Sea Island where all the characters are stranded temporarily. Joan Crawford is there and in the same hotel are the Reverend and Mrs. Davidson played by Walter Huston and Beulah Bondi. Kibbee says he left the USA because he saw that 'reformers' like the Davidsons were beginning to dominate the body politic in America and he wanted out.

Two things made Rain such a big hit at the time both as a book and play. One was Sigmund Freud who was gaining great popularity talking about repressed sexual desires. Freud would have had a field day analyzing both the Davidsons. It's important to remember that Bondi is just as repressed and uptight as Huston. Freud's writings were not just confined to his profession, they were popularly read by the masses.

The second thing was Prohibition. When Kibbee talks about the reformers triumphing (and you have to get the sneer in his voice when he says reformers)he's talking about their greatest triumph, the 18th amendment. The Evangelical Moral Majority types of the day were the ones that brought Prohibition about and America went on its biggest hypocrisy binge because of it. Folks just like the Davidsons inflicted Prohibition and all that went with it on America.

Sadie Thompson represents everything the Davidsons say they despise, but what Reverend Davidson wants. It all leads to tragedy.

What Maugham is saying and being a gay man himself, knew what it was like to be repressed and show a different face publicly, is just live and let live. Such a simple concept, but one some today have a hard time wrapping their minds around.

As for Joan Crawford, she wouldn't have said what she supposedly said about her performance in Rain knowing in the next generation there would be a musical version with a dubbed Rita Hayworth singing with the island kids. Now that one was one for the books.


This story, by Somerset Maugham, has been filmed many times in the last seventy-odd years, but this is the first. I cannot say that it is the best of all possible adaptations; a tacked-on sub-plot (involving a romance with an amorous quartermaster) helps the exposition but dilutes the icy cynicism of the basic story, the missionary and his wife are clumsy caricatures of hellfire and brimstone puritanism, while Joan Crawford's "low-class" accent is more irritating than it is believable -- one is relieved when she forgets to use it. Yet it shines.

The story is told only partially through the script, which seems less wordy than most early talkies: many important points are made purely visually, from the overflowing rainbarrel in the opening sequence to the high-heeled shoe that signals Sadie's return to her prior way of life. The camera *moves*: around tables, in and around groups of people, in and out of doors with incredible smoothness. Crawford's face is also a focus: from her initial "good-time gal" flirting with the sailors to the incredible sequence where she (apparently) converts, she leers, pouts, weeps, and more importantly, knows when to stop, in the three scenes she appears (seemingly) without makeup.

When Rev. Davidson soothes her in her extremis by telling her in a hypnotic voice (backed by native drums) that she is now "radiant, beautiful, one of the daughters of the King" (a moment of sheer unearthly poetry that verges on psychosis), we believe him -- and her. We also believe Huston's face a moment later, as he prays alone, grimaces unreadably, and suddenly resolves into a look of predatory lust just before slipping into her room, the drums implacably beating in the background.

Small excellences abound: the natives are portrayed sympathetically, and for the time, fairly accurately-- I especially liked the use of Polynesian music, which, along with the Sadie's hot jazz records, emphasises the sensual nature of life in the tropics. The subject of her profession is handled tastefully, but frankly and with humor: in referring to a friend's marriage to a sister fille de joie, the quartermaster remarks that they initally met "illegally" and goes on to say that since they met seeing each other at their worst, they can appreciate seeing each other at their best. A running counterpoint is provided by Dr. McPhail, a more-or-less neutral bystander, and Mr. Horne, the genial (and generally supinely drunk) innkeeper, who fusses, chortles, philosophizes, and gets most of the movie's best lines.

Perhaps the best of these occurs sometime after Sadie's conversion: lolling indolently, he reads from a small book something that sounds incredibly like Ecclesiates-- for a moment, we nearly believe that Davidson has converted him, too. Then, finishing the passage, he intones, "Thus spoke Zarathustra.... Good old Nietzche!"

Sixty-five years later, watching the film on a postage-stamp-sized screen of Real Video, I nearly fell out of my chair.


In the movie SCARFACE, Tony Carmonte (Paul Muni) takes Rinaldi (George Raft) and his other gang members for a night of culture - they go to see a play. Carmonte has cultural pretensions, loving to whistle opera arias from MARTHA and other works, usually just before he has someone rubbed out. But he really likes RAIN, and Muni ends up sending his stooge, Vince Barnet, to watch the conclusion of the play while Muni and his gang rub out Boris Karloff. Barnet catches up to Muni later and tells him that "Sadie" chose the Marine rather than the "cloth" (Minister). Muni likes that, and says "That Sadie is one smart girl." It is not the only time a classic film comments on the play RAIN. In TWENTIETH CENTURY John Barrymore compares another character's behavior to that of the Reverend Alfred Davidson (the Walter Huston performance in this film version).

RAIN was considered (in the early 1930s) the greatest stage play since Shakespeare's HAMLET. Certainly it is an engrossing story, based on a short story by W. Somerset Maugham. It's ironic that the play, by John Colton, was not written by Maugham as a a play. Maugham was a successful West End dramatist, whose works are still revived on occasion (in 1990 I saw Glynis Johns and Stewart Granger in a revival of Maugham's comedy THE CIRCLE). But his work was better when he had the leisure to write descriptions of characters and their behavior, or of the settings of his stories. It's his short stories and novels that people still read, not his plays. And RAIN is the only one with any dramatic power - and it wasn't his play.

RAIN is set in American Samoa, during the rainy season. A ship lands there, and among those who disembark are Rev. Alfred Davidson and his wife (Beulah Bondi). Both are extremely straight-laced - and apparently happy to be so. Davidson is annoyed to see that the hotel/store owner, Joe Horn (Guy Kibbee) has allowed a "wanton" woman named Sadie Thompson to room with there with the Davidsons and Dr. and Mrs. MacPhail. Thompson entertains a large number of American soldiers in her room, and she enjoys playing jazz on her Victrola. Except for the Davidsons, everyone else accepts Sadie. She's really a very friendly young woman, and she makes friends easily. As Mr. MacPhail is a philosopher, and Horn is of a philosophical turn (he keeps reading Ecclesiastes and Nietzche) neither of them really see anything wrong with Sadie.

But Davidson is angered by the sinful woman. He has a way of throwing his weight around viciously through his missionary contacts in Washington. Soon he has the soldiers restricted to their barracks, including Sgt. O'Hara (William Gargan) who really cares for Sadie. All protests from MacPhail are ignored (Davidson smilingly forgives the Doctor for his misguided condemnation). Then he turns his attention on Sadie, and forces her to explain why she is the South Seas (it is a criminal matter she is fleeing in the states). He insists that she has to face the criminal charges in order for her soul to be purified. Sadie tries to fight it, but the pressure is too great.

However, Davidson's contact with Sadie destroys him. He succeeds in turning her into a true penitent (as he imagines one), but he has become lascivious towards her - and finally has sex with her (we never are sure that it was voluntary or rape). When he realizes what he did, Davidson kills himself. Sadie ends up with O'Hara.

The acting in this film was first rate. Because it lost money, Joan Crawford always dismissed it, but her smoldering sexuality bursts every time she appears (Lewis Milestone sets up entrance for her twice in the film which is very suggestive of a "predatory" woman). Huston is equally good, especially as the self-admiring, Pharisaical Reverend who sees nothing wrong about pulling political wires to save a soul (or sending that poor person back to face a probably hellish experience that he would never suffer through). His sudden revelation of sexual desire is a little overdone, but not too badly. The supporting characters like Bondi, Kibbee, and those who really see the power-lust in Davidson (Gargan and Kendall Lee, who is MacPhail) give very good account of themselves in the film, as does Walter Catlett as the ship purser who is a friend of Sadie's. If not a perfect film, it is a worthy one. I only hope that one day the Gloria Swanson version made in 1928 shows up so it can be compared to this one.


This has to be one of the most intelligent movies Hollywood produced in the 1930's; I see it comes from Lewis Milestone, who produced the equally-brilliant All Quiet on the Western Front (1930). These films have almost a European look - appropriate, because the novels are by European writers.

You've got to admire Milestone for coaxing a sensitive performance out of Crawford, a woman who was happier when hamming it up. No wonder she didn't like her performance here; she was to genuinely ACT.

The story deals with the inner nature of a sanctimonious religious hypocrite, something quite relevant now. A lesser director (and novelist) would have turned Sadie into someone unbelievably virtuous, but Milestone and Crawford show us a much more complex character.

The other performances are great, too, especially Huston as the tormented evangelist; try comparing him to the chief satanist in The Seventh Victim (1943). The rain itself deserves special mention as a character establishing the insane claustrophobic atmosphere.

The stage version was portrayed briefly in Scarface (1932), another great movie from the 1930's.


I'd seen The Razor's Edge with Tyrone Power, and I'd read a couple of Maugham's short stories (I forget which ones, it's been so long), but I'd never taken the time to see read the story or see this film until now.

What interested me most was the presence of Joan Crawford, an actress for whom I've never had much regard. Now, that might sound strange, but I wanted to see her in a film that predated the 1950s and 1960s movies that I knew; in those, she looked old and worn, as you might expect after so long in movies.

I wanted to see her when she was young and didn't look like a man in drag, as I perceived her in later movies (maybe it all those padded shoulders of her dresses and coats, emphasizing her mannish looks?).

Anyway, I'm glad I did see her in this because she proved that she was indeed an excellent actress. And, although the video I got was a poor copy, Crawford literally shone, an illuminating contrast to the dark nights, the unending sight and sound of the rain and the dour and dominating aspect of Walter Houston as the self-righteous and chauvinistic preacher Davidson who tries to reform the prostitute Sadie Thompson (Crawford). It's worth seeing this movie just to see Crawford in a stunning performance, and close to her best, I think.

Such a story, of course, has its roots in numerous biblical accounts of fallen women and men who try to redeem them, although I'm not suggesting that Maugham simply plagiarized the bible. It just happens to be a story that's timeless, and is no doubt part of the human condition everyday, somewhere in the world.

However, the intriguing aspect for me is this: just when did Sadie figure out how to get Davidson off her back and out of her life? Was it when he was monotonously reciting The Lord's Prayer over and over again, or did she have a brilliant brainwave when he finally succumbed to all that she stood for, in his eyes, as a prostitute? You'll have to see the movie yourself to decide.

However, I have a feeling it's the former scenario which makes Sadie Thompson more than just a smart, wisecracking hooker and perhaps was indeed the personification of evil that Davidson railed against. Therein lies the tragedy for Davidson: he pays the ultimate price for misjudging Sadie's power over him because he thinks he's more powerful than she. So...is it any co-incidence that this femme fatale went by the name of Sadie, a name that comes very close to Sade, and all that that implies? The small supporting cast performs brilliantly, as befits a stage play. And the period settings evoked strong memories of New Guinea, where I spent much of my youth fifty years ago.

Fans of Joan Crawford would like this film. I did, even though I was no fan of hers.


Rain stars Joan Crawford as fun-time gal Sadie Thomson and Walter Huston as the preacher trying to save her. Director Lewis Milestone has a great eye for the visuals with the close-ups of rain in rivers, sands, and trees in the beginning and near the end. Besides the two leads, there's also good performances by Guy Kibbee as the hotel owner that houses Crawford and Huston, Beulah Bondi as Huston's wife, and William Gargan as Crawford's Navy protector. Two of the best scenes are when Huston repeatedly says the Lord's Prayer as Crawford becomes mesmerised and starts saying it herself and Huston's final scene as he says a silent prayer to himself before he changes his expression to one in which he seems about to lose self-control before he rushes to where Crawford resides. I wish questions about Sadie's time in San Francisco had been answered. Other than that, I found this to be a compelling pre-Code drama about individuality vs. conformity. For Crawford and Huston fans, this is well worth seeking out!


W. Somerset Maugham's torrid tale in grainy black and white and evocative of the early 30's. Joan Crawford is Miss Sadie Thompson, a "fallen woman" temporally stranded in the rain on the island of Pango Pango with a group of Marines and a fire and brimstone missionary(Walter Huston)and his wife(Beulah Bondi). The puritanical preacher's wife is very irritated with the trashy Sadie, but the staid Reverend Davidson(Huston)finally gives up on the religious babel and a heart-to-heart almost reforms sexy Sadie. Provocatively the missionary is found face down in the sea. This oft-told tale is worth watching.

Directed by Lewis Milestone and also starring: Guy Kirbee, Ben Hendirk's Jr and William Gargan.


(Some spoilers) Getting stuck on the Somoan Island of Pago Pago because of an outbreak of cholera makes life a bit tenuous for the boat passenger stranded there but for fun loving and partying Sadie Tompson, Joan Crawford, it's the best thing that could have happened to her. Palying the phonograph high and loud and drinking whiskey and rum right out of the bottle as well as carousing and dancing with the US Marines stationed at the island made Sadie a target of one of the fellow passengers that's stuck there with her reformer and religious fanatic Alfred Davidson, Walter Huston. Davidson makes it his utmost duty to shame Sadie's wicked godless soul in what's she's doing, and save it even if it kills him.

W. Somerset Maugham novel "Miss Thompson" released in 1932 as the movie "Rain" is about how a man can become so infatuated with sin in battling it that he in the end he becomes not only deranged but overcomes with guilt and shame, to the point of killing himself, just for thinking about it. Throughout the entire movie Davidson is totally committed in saving Sadie's soul from eternal damnation by driving the poor woman almost into having a nervous breakdown. Davidson in his probing of Sadie's past comes up with the information, that he psychologically beat out of her, that she was wanted back in the states for prostitution and is awaiting a three year sentence for it when she steps off the boat at the San Farncisco piers.

Sadie is slowly broken down by Davidson's tactics and he really gets to her when he has the Governor of the island, Pago Pago, sign an order to ship her out and back to San Francisco where she awaits a prison cell. Trying to get a rock hard Davison to change his mind Sadie gives into every one of his demands that includes her becoming a bible thumping and church going Christian. Even Sadie's going along with him isn't good enough for the non-forgiving, which is the exact opposite of Christianity, Davidson. A triumphant and smug Davidson tells a now completely destroyed, in mind and body, Sadie that she'll have to pay for her sins in being put away behind bars back in the states even if she's guilty or not!

The ending is a bit hazy with Sadie about to get away from Davidson and the law by shipping out with her new US Marine Corps boyfriend Sgt. Tim "Handsome" O'Hara, William Gargan, for Sidney Australia and then changing her mind when she's confronted by Davidson. Davidson playing what seems like a sadistic little cat and mouse game with Sadie tells her that she can leave for Sidney only to have Sadie, now suffering from what looks like a sever case of Stockhome Syndrome, chooses to go back to the states and face her punishment and have her soul cleansed.

It's later that we see an obvious going insane Davidson as he gets a crazed look on his face and starts losing control of his feelings and emotions. With Davidson completely losing it we hear in the background the tempo of native drums and heavy monsoon rainfall starts to pick up. Davidson loses control of his ability to keep evil and sinful thoughts out of his mind as he finally snaps as he eventually loses his mind as well as his life.

Your left up in the air to what caused Davidson to do himself in. I feel that W. Somerset Maugham was trying to tell us is that a religious nut like Davidson who put himself up on such a high pedestal of morality that when he as much as got a thought of what he would consider to be sinful that it burst his whole balloon of holy self-righteous. This rediscovery of himself caused,in Davidson thinking that he's a perfect Christian and human being, him to completely fall mentally as well as physically apart.


This film is essentially a remake of the 1928 silent Sadie Thompson only with sound. Joan Crawford & Walter Huston recreate the roles of Gloria Swanson & Lionel Barrymore. The script is exactly the same story except that it is murkier because of all the rainy weather.

Sadie Thompson (Crawford) is the woman of ill reputation who needs to be saved. This film centers around this story. She has escaped from San Francisco to an island where she is heading to Australia to escape a prison sentence for what she has done. The rest centers around her decision on what she decides to do.

The photography in this is not quite as good as the original although the films are almost exactly the same length. Ms. Crawfords acting elevates this above being a standard remake & into a better film than some of the early talking films. This one helped launch her successful career.

The story told by the film is solid enough that after only 4 years it was remade. One of the shorter times between remakes in American Film History.


A total bomb when it first hit in 1932, Rain today holds up rather well for today's audience to enjoy. Perhaps another example of a movie ahead of it's time. One can see why. Crawford's outfits and make up are rather bizarre, one part gypsy, one part hooker. Which I suppose is in keeping with the character of Sadie Thompson. The writing (from a story by W. Somerset Maugham) is not your typical 1930's fluff. There is nothing to like in this world. What I found enjoyable were the clothing and music from the early 1930's. The two "ladies," Mrs. Robert MacPhail and Mrs. Walter Davidson, are decked out from their shoes to their hats which were so stylish and sophisticated, and then comes Sadie. She is not a hooker with a heart of gold but more troubled than in need of salvation. What I found hard to believe was her sudden conversion to Christianity just by repeating the Lord's Prayer several times with Mr. Davidson, portrayed wonderfully by Walter Huston. Sadie's redemption is not to be, once again being taken advantage of by a man, this time by the very man who set out to "save" her. The sins of the flesh run through this movie with the rain perhaps symbolizing the washing away of past sins. Heady entertainment that works well for today with a fine performance by a young Joan Crawford.


Naturalism, my pals, naturalism was often interwoven with melodrama and stridency, in Maugham as in T Williams (--the difference being, naturally, that Maugham was a remarkable writer, while T Williams, a hack--)in other words, psychological exploitation, _dramsploitation; RAIN seems a quite peculiar drama, well handled and intelligently crafted, it looks peculiar, striking, unusual, fundamentally exciting and intriguing, with a pretty good pace and sharply devised roles and Mrs. Crawford's particularly raw and convincing performance; and most of all, it has those things, those twinned things we call gusto and brio.

Mrs. Crawford does what was once called a composition, a performance carefully developed of a role that allows for a broad range of expressionlike Charlize Theron being the murderess in a famous movie, or Pacino playing the officer in SCENT OF A WOMAN, or Brando being the godfather Corleone, or Rourke in HOMEBOY and BARFLY, or Nicholson in A FLEW OVER  and THE SHINING.

Well, Mrs. Crawford is awesomely good at what she does. Her performance in RAIN, and her character, Sadie Thompson, are memorable. What is less successful is the preacher's conversion, he switches abruptly, there's no rise of desire felt in him.

RAIN has a modern look and feel, and a thorough appeal; its author was the legendary Lewis Milestone, the one who has directed All Quiet on the Western Front, The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, etc.. In RAIN, his directing is neat and commending, the movie's style has suppleness and sharpness.

The script exposes the bitter fruits of virtue. In those early days of the talkies, when there was the tendency to deliver filmed theater, they preferred to shoot not the literary sources directly, but stage adaptationslike they did with Dracula in the same span of time. RAIN is also based not directly on the Maugham prose, but on a stage version.


Before she was Mildred Pierce, Joan Crawford played the role of Sadie Thompson based on Somerset Maugham's story entitled Rain. She is a prostitute or too loose with the men especially the sailors. When she and others are stranded on Pago Pago in the Samoa, they have to stay there before they can go anywhere else. Walter Huston plays a devout religious hypocritical merciless minister who tries to steer Sadie in the right direction. Anybody else could have made Sadie either laughable or one-dimensional, Crawford shows her talent in keeping us to like and dislike her character. Crawford's first and final appearance is simply impressive. You can't take your eyes off her. She wants to be the star of the film and she is because she has the talent in order to succeed and she does to legendary status. Crawford's knack for being comical, cruel, vulnerable all at once in this role. Beulah Bondi has a supporting role. For one of the first films in the early thirties, it's an entertaining film.


The one constant in Somerset Maugham's short story of "Rain" was the incessant rain and the oppressive, claustrophobic and maddening effect it had on the participants. This effect is translated and conveyed effectively in this movie. The opening 5 minutes are dated and boring but if you get past this you will thoroughly enjoy the movie.


Fascinatingly mannered early talkie adaptation of a semi-classic Somerset Maugham story, Rain starts wonderfully, with a rainstorm, then declines into a lurid drama of the sort that was considered shocking at the time (1932), and scarcely raises an eyebrow today. Lewis Milestone does a reasonable job under the circumstances, directing the movie in a manner as to suggest that he was for a while a student of the avant garde, as there are aspects of this film that seem almost experimental.

The story concerns a displaced woman, Sadie Thompson, living on a south sea island, independent and yet depressed, a prostitute by trade, and her relationships with two men, one a handsome Marine, the other a minister as messed up as she is. As Sadie, the legendary Joan Crawford chews the scenery, with her wide-eyed expression at times seeming to burn two holes in the screen. She is at all times artificial, not credible in the least, and yet mesmerizing. Miss Crawford may not have been a great actress, but by God she was a star. As the erring Rev. Davidson, Walter Huston serves up his usual dish of poker faced ham, and is scarcely more believable than Crawford. In smaller roles, Beulah Bondi, and especially Guy Kibbee, perform nicely.

For those interested in what early talkies were like this one is a must. It's very watchable, and Milestone and cinematographer Oliver Marsh work wonders with the camera. Hollywood generally did south seas stories fairly well, excitingly anyway, but failed to pull this one off in the appropriate manner. The constant rain is almost as much a downer for the viewer as for the characters; and there's no sense of why anyone would want to travel to this particular island, much less live there.


It's hard not to see Rain as the film that symbolizes the pre-code era, where Hollywood was not afraid to portray the more libertine side of society, and give an image that was not so morally right. And it's also hard not to see this film as a direct protest against the code that there was talk about during these years. The Hays Code sought to make films more caste. And the plot of this film makes too much a got metaphor for the whole situation.

Joan Crowford plays a prostitute that is accused for her behavior by Puritans in some lost Hawaiian island. Among them is Mr. Davidson, a powerful man who has an obsession with religion. In reality, Joan Crowford is playing herself and the image we all have of her. And in fact, the way she enters the screen dressed all too flamboyantly like a hooker is a penchant, as much as it is too cheesy for an audience that doesn't understand that at that time, that was the Hollywood idea of a real woman.

However you decide to view it, it's a hard watch. Not so much as the flow of the viewing itself (although it does tend to be slow), but for other flaws. In the plot, we are not given any character to side with. Supposedly, the main characters are Sadie (Joad Crawford) and Mr. Thompson (Walter Huston). However, they are also the extreme, and both obnoxious. Sadie is a flirty skank, and an actress, playing with other people's feelings. And Thompson, her enemy in the story, is just too mad for us to side with him. So, really, the only character we can side with, and can actually identify with is Tim O'Hara (William Gargan). That gives the audience a limited participation.

And even then, Handsome is too innocent. When he first sees Sadie, he is mesmerized, almost unable to speak. He is, in fact, the personification of the ordinary man seeing the Hollywood star Joan Crawford in the real world. He falls in love with her right away. We, as the audience, can't help feeling that she is playing him, using him because she knows that he will be helpful, and because she needs friends. Handsome falls in love with her completely and can't reason right from wrong. Yet, we can't blame his innocence. He represents the audience: Crawford is the star, she is the one that gets the best close-ups, hence, we have to love her. Mr. Davidson is the bad one.

The metaphor, as far as the Hays code connection lies, is in that Crawford represents cinema, and Huston represents the puritanism. The film never quite picks sides, nor do we. But they are obviously both horrible. It's as if the film were stating that Hollywood needs to pull the breaks a little, but still not give in entirely to the Puritan demands.

The film is taken from a Broadway production. Perhaps director Lewis Milestone wasn't aware that he wasn't making a stage production, because although the style resembles many of the time, here he even has the actors exiting what looks like a theatrical set, all the times. Supposedly, he is not all to blame, Maxwell Anderson, in charge of the adaptation, wrote it so that the film had to be just that. But it's frustrating to see that the camera is moved quite well in some sequences, and then the setting comes across as so unreal.

The mise-en-scene itself cannot be judged negatively. In he scenes in which Sadie and Mr. Davidson are together, the camera looks at him from below, and Sadie seems to be always placed lower than him. This shows the authority that he holds. In the scene when he starts reciting the Our Father, he is higher up on the stairs, and when Sadie kneels down at the bottom of the stairs and begins praying, it looks like she is praying at him.

Yet, the story itself is disappointing. The fact that we cannot side with any of the characters makes it so that we don't really care about what is going on, and if we do, we tend to change our minds quite quickly. In the end, we are almost completely let down, by the fact that the message seems to be that morality never wins. But after all, we don't know what morality is.

The acting is brilliant. Joan Crawford has an easy part; she's playing herself. William Huston is a revelation. He is quite extraordinary as well as eccentric, he seems to dominate every scene he is in. We almost come to admire his character, and side with him, although he is insane.

The final line is the one where Crawford says she is sorry for everyone in the world. Is that a sly comment on the cinema that was about to come? Or should we see it as an apology for such a mediocre film, only good as a vehicle for Crawford's on-screen persona?


Missed this Joan Crawford classic where she plays the role of Sadie Thompson, a woman of the streets who gets involved with a missionary and a soldier and sometimes plays the role of good and evil. There are plenty of drums beating all the time and the rain sure comes down in buckets most of the time and everything seems to be filmed in dark shadows. There are fishermen who are pulling in their nets with fish and they discover something very unusual and very large in their nets. Walter Houston, (Alfred Davidson), gives a great supporting role as the missionary who battles with his lust for Sadie Thompson and her sexual charms. Great classic film, but the acting at times gets boring and rather phony sounding.


Some movies age very well and seem timeless. Others, like RAIN, seem pretty silly when viewed decades later. However, on a purely "camp" level, Joan Crawford's performance is well worth seeing as the tramp with a heart of gold, Sadie Thompson. She is indeed "trampy" in this performance and lacks any subtlety whatsoever--probably not a bad thing considering the character she plays.

The movie is a morality tale about a hypocritical preacher and his dried up old wife. Both are nasty and self-righteous, though down deep the preacher (Walter Huston) is ALL MAN (hubba, hubba)! Please,...this seems less like real people but more like broad caricatures--which, when you watch this hoary (it means "old", not "trampy" once again) film, that's about all you get. An interesting curio but hardly a film to get excited about or that will make any lasting impression.


My dear online friend, legendaryCrawford of Boston Mass, invited me to see this movie, and valuing my internet pal's opinion on films like this, I couldn't refuse.

But "Rain" was laughable, hardly intense, gripping or thought-provoking. I watched it only to see Mommie Dearest to get some understanding of possibly the second-most self-destructive Hollywood actress, Monroe being the first.

From the moment Crawford spoke and moved in her earthy, brazen manner, I thought of Penny Marshall doing LaVerne DeFazio on the seventies sitcom.

Even during the 'conversion' it looked just like the way DeFazio used to behave when she felt defeated. Some of it bordered on precious (I'm eating' my suppah. I guess my suppah can wait.), but most of it was tiresome and clichéd and contrived.

Why would the pious minister's wife be so offended by Crawford and not by the staggering drunk? Obviously the story was just to make Crawford the victim of the discrimination due to her lifestyle.

Her getup and behaviour of a fallen woman was amusing also when you think of all the dear ladies who have appeared in MTV videos and all that "breakthrough" business Madonna pulled back in the eighties and nineties. Goes around, comes around.

Watch this movie only for Crawford. Again in the conversion, I couldn't help but think of Reverend Lovejoy on the Simpsons when Walter Huston began praying.

Huston and his on screen wife were very unpleasant stereotypes of ticky, self-righteous bible-thumpers ("Don't even look at her" -- but the drunk could stagger all around their table) And I didn't understand Huston's fate at all.

Crawford walks off hand-in-hand with Prince Charming, something she would do in many films later on. But her trashy attire is insightful (again, think of MTV. I'm gonna let my teen-aged nephew see this).


Star and a half Maltin review is a bit discouraging for watching THE SPLIT. And yet it`s great to say that Maltin is horribly wrong in his case, sibce THE SPLIT delivers loads of cool soft-noir.

Gordon Flemyng, the British film and TV veteran shapes a posh and groovy heist flick about a post robbery split gone bad. The cast is masterful, Jim Brown does a great Wastlake/Stark character up there with Lee Marvin in POINT BLANK and Mel Gibson in THE PAYBACK. The rest of the cast includes such hard-asses like Gene Hackman, Donald Sutherland, Warren Oates and Ernest Borgnine. So the movie emanates great energy on screen and Flemyng cuts it with typical British elegance, smart and sharp decisions.

Maybe THE SPLIT felt too calculated to Maltin, but to me, it represents the era when Hollywood entertainment still managed to assuredly deliver the authentic exploitation of a formula.


Richard Stark's novel "The Seventh" becomes a great-looking all-star heist flick with a football backdrop which, unfortunately, completely falls apart in the final quarter. Drifting thief, apparently a genius at concocting schemes and rounding up partners, comes up with a brilliant plan to rob the cash-office at the Los Angeles Coliseum during a football game. Selecting his ex-con cohorts by means of making them display their muscles (not especially their skills) is rather perplexing, though it works for the movie. What doesn't work is a sharp left turn in the narrative about an hour into the proceedings, with an absolutely unbelievable (and unforgivable) turn of events pitting the robbers against each other. This ridiculous third act smacks of desperation, and leaves Gene Hackman (as a somewhat dirty detective) with nothing but absurdity to play opposite. The rest of the cast does well until the screenplay drops the ball, and Burnett Guffey's cinematography is first-rate. *1/2 from ****


The Split starts as career criminal Mac McClain (Jim Brown) arrives back in Los Angeles, there he hooks up with his ex-wife Ellie (Diahann Carroll) & his associate Gladys (Julie Harris). Mac says he needs 'a big job' & Gladys tells him about a plan she has to steal half a million dollars in takings from the 80,000 plus seater Colleseum football stadium during the match between the Los Angeles Rams & the Green Bay Packers, the match has no advance ticket sales so every seat has to be paid for in cash on the day at the gate. Mac likes the idea & sets out recruiting a gang to pull it off, the muscle is supplied by Bert Clinger (Ernest Borgnine), the wheel man is Harry Kifka (Jack Klugman), the weapons man & shooter is Dave Negli (Donald Sutherland) & the professional hi-tech thief, lock picker & safe-cracker is Marty Gough (Warren Oates). Everything is prepared & the day of the heist arrives...

Directed by Gordon Flemyng this late 60's crime heist action thriller is unfairly rather obscure but is worth the effort to track a copy down, although you can compare The Split to The Italian Job (1969) since they are both 60's heist films The Split was made & released a year before. The script by Robert Sabaroff was based on the novel 'The Seventh' by Donald E. Westlake can be divided into three chunks, the first third of the film revolves around the recruiting of the team with some fun set-pieces to make sure each member is up to the task, the second third of the film is my favourite when they carry out the heist & there's that feeling that you root for them & you want to get away with it & all the close calls they have & watching the plan unfold is pretty fun, then the final third of the film is perhaps the weakest as several random events come together & tear the thieves apart & it becomes a rather dull runaround after the money which goes missing through no fault of their own but does obviously cause problems as they don't know who to trust. That's about it really. I would have been happy if The Split had ended after the gang had stolen the money & got away with it but there's this tacked on ending a lot of which feels very random, like how did Ellie's landlord know she had the money? Why leave the money in such an exposed place? Then there's the ending when everyone gets shot & it just all seems rather pointless. The plot wouldn't work now of course, what with the amount of CCTV's & security, the fact a lot of people pay by credit card & I don't understand why the gang don't try to cover their faces. They rob the place without any mask's or gloves so if the hostages don't identify them their finger prints surely would? For such a well planned robbery that's quite a big oversight, isn't it?

Director Flemyng does a good job, he keeps the film moving along & it always feels like something is happening. The character's are also very good with each member of the gang having a distinct personality & getting at least a few minutes screen time to develop it although McClain is hard to like as the lead character since he only seems interested in serving himself. The Split was apparently the first film to be given an 'R' rating by the MPAA thanks to some fun fights, a few shoot-outs, a bit of mild bad language (although the 'N' word is used here in a casual fashion, something unthinkable these days especially when the IMDb flags it as a 'Prohibited Word' as I have just found out...) & a bit of blood. There's also a neat car chase here as well. It's somewhat surprising that The Split is such an obscure film with it's crowd pleasing heist plot & the top drawer cast but it is, last night I saw a full widescreen 2:35:1 Panavision print of this & while the colours were a bit washed out & a bit pastel it looked very nice.

Technically the film is very good, it has good production values, good stunt work & nice cinematography. The one aspect of The Split I don't like is the music, it's horrible & dates the film more than anything else in it. Damn, just look at that cast. There aren't many films that boast a cast as good as The Split. Jim Brown, Ernest Borgnine, Julie Harris, Warren Oates, the peerless Jack Klugman, Donald Sutherland & Gene Hackman. The acting is top notch from one of the best cast of character actors your ever likely to see in the same film.

The Split is a good heist film that starts out like The Italian Job but goes in a significantly darker direction although not to the films overall benefit in my opinion. I liked it as a one time watch & the cast are great but I am not sure I would want to see it again anytime soon.