A critical failure at the time of its release and considered something of a let-down for its director and star, (it was certainly an odd choice of material), this 1964 film version of Emlyn Williams' play, (it was written in 1935 and filmed two years later with Robert Montgomery), is nowhere near as bad as people say. It's the one about the young psychopath, (a terrific Albert Finney), who worms his way into the affections of elderly invalid Mona Washbourne, (superb), and her initially stand-offish daughter, (an excellent Susan Hampshire). The problem is that in attempting to get to the psychological heart of the piece director Karl Reisz drains it of all suspense and Clive Exton's screenplay, (I haven't seen or read the original play), is a bit on the dull side. But neither is it a disaster and I have never understood why it disappeared so soon after its initial appearance.

I saw this film way back when and have vivid recollection of one scene in particular. It may have been the opening scene of the movie. Anyway the scene starts rolling with a general view of the sun shining in a heavily-wooded forest. Amidst from the usual sounds (birds twittering etc.) there's a rhythmic thunk or thud of a man at work. The camera zooms in on the image of Albert Finney standing bare-chested, wielding an axe and chopping up an unseen object. I guess we initially assume he's chopping up wood. But it must have been one of his victims whose severed head ends up in a hat-box in his room. Cannot remember much more than this - other than the general feeling of menace and fear that Finney managed to evoke with his performance as the psychotic killer who terrorises the women of the house.

If you've seen the 1937 version of this film, it's hard not to compare the two. The first version is subtle and Danny's menace is hinted at rather than openly shown. Instead of quiet, threatening glances, we have an ax thrown through into the air and Finney hacking away at a dead body. I also don't understand why the 1964 version had to change the character of Olivia. In the original she was a repressed spinster, a nerd who was brunette and wore glasses, which made her attraction to a murderer all the more fascinating. Instead, the 1964 version recast Olivia as a sexy blonde who used to be an actress! The sexual tension between the two is totally gone (Olivia and Dan have sex immediately) and the great, quietly erotic scenes between Rosalind Russell and Robert Montgomery in the original (similiar to the scenes between Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling) are missing. Instead we have a routine conflict - blonde wavers between her attraction and fear of an obvious psycho - and the film has nowhere to go. The only suspense left comes from watching Finney as "the psycho" and wondering when he'll explode.This is why the ending falls flat. Instead of seeing Russell's Olivia, still sexually frustrated and mesmerized by the sight of Dan in handcuffs in the 1937 original, we have Danny cowering in a bathroom and Olivia waiting to call the police. To really enjoy this film, I would advise not seeing the original!

An aristocratic old lady employs her maid's boyfriend as handyman to her country mansion, though he is determined to seduce the lady's fragile daughter and is himself a psychotic killer.Brave but misguided attempt to turn a 1937 old-dark-house-chiller into a fashionable new-wave style psychological horror. The central performance is unconvincingly hammy, the treatment often heavy-handed, the intention hard to guess, but the pictures artfully composed, the music score suitably sinister, and the lady support striking. An unexpected commercial flop that came rather too soon for both star and director.