A dour little movie, with flat out ugly photography and ill-matched pairings. In short, the 90- minutes is something of an ordeal to sit through, that is, if you have the usual movie expectations. I don't know what the director told lead actor Pleasance (Crippen), but he acts like he swallowed a lemon throughout, even when in the loving company of the luscious Eggar (Ethel). I know he's supposed to be repressed, but his permanent paralysis appears unreal. Then too, seeing this unpleasant little middle-aged man paired with the lovely young Eggar amounts to more than a stretch. Then there's Belle (Brown), his boisterously unfaithful wife. About five-minutes into the film and I was hoping someone would strangle her and rescue my ears. The movie's only mystery is why it took him so long.The case itself, from books I've read, was pretty much open-and-shut against the doctor. Certainly he had reasons to commit the crime, which coincides with the movie. However, I suspect the element of doubt about his intentions that the movie introduces was an invention to add a provocative note to an otherwise unremarkable screenplay. Certainly, Crippen is presented as a somewhat sympathetic character by movie's end, which looks like a belated effort to humanize an otherwise one-note performance. Anyhow, the lead characters come across more like stereotypes than real people. And that along with the truly grim-faced production amounts to a forgettable movie experience.

A Rather Dry and Low-Key Re-Telling of the Infamous Real-Life 1910 Case involving a Prominent Doctor, a Domineering and Battle-Axe of a Wife, an Attractive Mistress, and a Grisly Murder and Dismemberment. The "Good" Doctor was Tried and Hanged, but like so many of these Cases, the Jury, at least Publicly, is Still Out.This Movie is a Well Cast, Talky, Claustrophobic Story that Attains a British, Stuffy, Tone and never Varies. It is Compelling, if not a Top-Notch, Thriller or Mystery Who-Done-It or Courtroom Drama. The Film just sort of Whispers its way from one Scene to Another with just Enough Intrigue to keep one Interested.Nicholas Roeg's Cinematography is Crisp but Confined and it is the Performances that Grip this True Story and make it Involving with Samantha Eger and Donald Pleasence Standing Out, but Everyone Contributes to this Somewhat Creepy, Fireside, True-Crime, Turn of the Century Tale.

The British seem to have more interesting murderers than America, disregarding the current serial killer mania. The British have Jack the Ripper, Christie and Crippen, and what have we got? Lizzie Borden, and that's all.Crippen was a doctor who, in 1910, poisoned his virago of a horny wife, disarticulated her body, hid it, and ran off with his pretty young secretary, Ethel La Neve.According to this story, Crippen poisoned his wife by accident. La Neve had no idea she was dead and disposed of, believing Crippen's story that the wife had run off to America with one of her many boyfriends. When he comes under suspicion by Scotland Yard, Crippen tries to pull the same stunt. Well -- if you can mismanage an escape, this one is thoroughly bungled. Crippen shaves his mustache and disguises La Neve (played by the succulent and beautiful Samantha Eggar) as a boy. On the ship to America, the deceit is obvious, if for no other reason than that Crippen keeps grabbing his "son's" ass in public. The wireless is put to work and the duo are met by the Canadian police, returned to England, and Crippen gets the noose while La Neve goes free.No one can fault the performances. Donald Pleasance plays Crippen as a henpecked husband who stifles every emotion. Coral Browne is his frowzy, unfastidious wife always importuning her husband to bed her, which he hasn't done in years. (It's pretty frank about these matters.) But Pleasance doesn't seem to have any trouble with Ethel La Neve. Why should he? Not being the right kind of maven I don't know how closely the film hews to the historical record. The framing story is Crippen's trial and there are many flashbacks, sometimes illustrating events the witness could never have seen. The writing is clumsy and the direction pedestrian. It's a bald presentation of the facts, done with what appears to be a limited budget. It's artless. There is no poetry.There could have been an entirely different take on the matter. Ethel La Neve -- Homewrecker. She's Crippen's typist and wears low-cut dresses to work. She seduces Crippen who is, after all, every young lady's dream -- a doctor -- and persuades the smitten doc to get rid of the harridan at home and bury her dismembered corpse in the cellar.Still, there is an adult intelligence at work behind the flavorless presentation of fact and fancy. Every character is given a touch of some humanity, from Crippen the murderer, through his loveless wife, to the corrections officer at the jail before Crippen gets it in the neck. It's too bad that it all comes out rather spiritless.

Brits complain about Americans stealing our inventions, yet we've been quite happy to claim two Americans, a quack doctor and a failed burlesque singer for our own. Casting 'Donald Pleasence'(qv) as the Doctor and Anglicised Aussie 'Coral Browne' (qv) as his insufferable wife not only seemed right but produced wonderfully atmospheric performances. I've only seen a TV version so it may be TV editing rather than the low budget that missed out, for example, Ethel wearing Mrs Crippens furs & jewellery to events. It would have helped see why the Doctor fell under suspicion. Made at a time when abolishing capital punishment and miscarriages of justices were under discussion in the UK it is not surprising the film suggests that the murder wasn't premeditated. In the light of his subsequent actions, you can decide yourself.The real `other woman' Ethel Le Neve, changed her name and died in Dulwich, SE London, in 1967 aged 89. If she saw this movie what did she think?