User Reviews

The main trouble with this production is that while the young male lead may have the profile of an Ivor Novello and may demonstrate considerable conviction of movement during the lengthy silent sequences, he simply can't speak his lines -- or at least, can't seem to say them with anything approaching a natural inflection. When he has to appear demented or distraught, he's not so bad, but when he has to take part in even the briefest conversational exchange, he sounds incredibly stilted, amateur and uncomfortable; the effect is to set the listener on edge, but probably not as intended. In the silent era he might well have had at least a minor career ahead of him, but on this showing he would have been a complete wash-out in the era of sound.

Apart from this admittedly major flaw, the film as an atmosphere piece is reasonably good, although I did feel that even at this brief length it drags. The special effects for the diseased eye that provides the main motivation for the plot are convincingly repellent, especially in an early scene where it is seen, horribly, to move, though I'm not sure the character's concomitant and vital sensitivity to sounds is sufficiently brought out; it seems to re-emerge only on demand. I haven't read the original story but suspect this is an element which is easier to render on the printed page.

A pure classic! Quirky, terrifyingly delicious.

It speaks to the mind and heart in the "Twilight Zone" / "Night Gallery" sort of way, with a good mix of Alfred Hitchcock.

The brilliance shines through with every viewing of this movie.

Brian Desmond Hurst's first movie is a poor quota quickie. It is amateurishly acted by performers, most of whose screen credits consist of just this movie -- although John Kelt as the murder victim had some silent credits, and Thomas Shenton as one of the investigators later had a career as a make-up artist. It's clear that Hurst had seen UN CHIEN ANDALOU; he borrowed extensively for his shots and images.

It is of interest because Hurst would quickly get better, and would direct one easily seen masterpiece: SCROOGE. The rest of his catalogue has been difficult to find, although a few others have become available over the last decade, and have proven him a capable film maker. This one, however, adds no luster to his career. It's of interest to completists, connoisseurs of bad movies, and other madmen such as I.

this film was shown as part of the NFTs Quota Quickie season.I have to say that with all the material that they have in the archives it beats me why the BFI thought this pile of rubbish was worth inflicting upon an audience.It seemed to me that the director,Brian Desmond Hurst,who went on to rather bigger and better films,had spent a lot of time watching and being influenced by German expressionist films of the 20s.In fact he seemed to be so obsessed with style that he completely forgot about the content.Also there is the problem that the actors are amateur,although this in keeping with most of the rest of the production.I have never known 49 minutes to go so slowly .I would like to give this film a big fat zero but regrettably i cannot so i have given it a 1/10 which is 1 more than it deserves.

I recently saw a copy of this at the BFI and I have to disagree with the other reviews on this page. Although some of the dialogue (by Edgar Allan Poe) may come across as slightly stilted, this is a small distraction from what is, essentially, an undiscovered curiosity (it is not currently commercially available). Director Brian Desmond Hurst (John Ford's cousin, according to urban myth) went on to bigger things, most notably Alastair Sim's classic Scrooge (1951) adaptation, but maybe not more interesting. This is an expressionistic tour-de-force, on a par visually at least with the revered 'horror'classics of that school (really!), The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari. Nosferatu etc The camera-work is fluid and expressive and both the sound and visual editing is excellent, all the more remarkable in an era when few British film-makers, Hitchcock and a very select group of others aside, were seen to have mastery in true visual expertise. Even reviewers of the time, usually reserved in their praise of British film-makers, recognised that this was a truly unique exercise in British film. In short, this film demands to be seen on so many levels.