Here it is, folks, my favourite Hammer film. And it's quite ironic that as a horror fan more than a thriller fan that I should find this Hammer thriller a better, more riveting film than any of their horror films. But life can work out that way sometimes.The plot starts off with a simple concept, which goes as follows - the parents of a 10-year old boy pick him up from an institution he's being held in and bring him back home. It's implied that the boy has done something wrong that led him to being confined. But we're never told what. It's this air of mystery throughout the film that forms the frame on which the rest of the other great aspects of the film are built. The atmosphere at times is reminiscent of the other masterpiece Bette Davis starred in - WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? But the two films are very different in other ways.There are some interesting characters to be found here.The boy's mother, played brilliantly by Wendy Craig, is a depressed woman, easily upset and unable to cope with the responsibilities of life, particularly motherhood. The boy's father, played equally brilliantly by James Villiers, is a calm man, in control but somewhat impatient of his wife's mannerisms and her behaviour. You get the impression that things weren't always this way and that once their marriage and home life was a happy one before whatever sad event caused things to change. This all adds to the air of mystery and the film keeps you guessing until late on.Then we have the boy's nanny, a sinister woman with a very creepy vibe about her, played to perfection by the one and only Bette Davis. Does the boy really have anything to fear from his dear, old nanny? Or are his fears irrational? You'll have to watch the film to find out. But the film really keeps you guessing.Jill Bennett plays the sister of Wendy Craig's character. Bennett's character is, on the surface, much stronger-willed than Craig's and finds the boy's behaviour ridiculous at times. The contrast in the characters of the two sisters is interesting but what's more interesting still, is that she does have a vulnerability of her own, which I won't reveal here.The film is well-paced and the script is simply excellent (kudos to Jimmy Sangster). Too many thrillers, particularly Italian ones that I've seen, have thrown away the solid foundation they are initially built on by descending into tedium. THE NANNY doesn't fall into that trap. It keeps you on the edge of your seat and you will want to stay with the film until the mystery is solved. The revelations don't disappoint or ruin what comes before them either. It's all rather disturbing when the truth comes out but it's not depressing to watch. There is much suspense and tension in those scenes. Seth Holt does an outstanding job.Overall, THE NANNY is my favourite Hammer film. There's none of the cheesiness found in their better known horror films. This is a serious film from beginning to end and a true mystery thriller masterpiece.

The Nanny (1965) *** (out of 4)Joey (William Dix) is a ten-year-old boy who was accused of killing his younger sister and he's been spending time away at a home for troubled children. He comes back home and right off the bat he is terrified by and hates the nanny (Bette Davis).THE NANNY is a mildly effective film from Hammer that proved they were able to touch on some risky subjects as well as trying to expand their credibility by having someone like Bette Davis appear in their film. Davis, still riding the success of WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?, is quite excellent here and is certainly the main reason to watch the picture.For some reason horror fans always have to compare things. They compare one death scene to another or compare one Frankenstein to another. I guess it's fun to do this because it starts up debates but for some reason this film is always compared to WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? and I personally think that's a shame. Davis was masterful in that film and she's quite great here. There's really no point in comparing the performances because they are so different and the only thing the two prove is how great Davis was.Whereas the Baby Jane character was crazy and over-the-top, this nanny character is so much more calm, cool and collective. The entire point of the film is its mystery as to what exactly the kid did and what exactly the nanny did and Davis makes it believable because of her brilliant performance. She's sinister and yet there's a calmness about her that makes you think that perhaps she's just an innocent part. A lot of credit can also go towards Dix as he's quite good as is the supporting cast.With that said, the film works as a slow burn meaning it takes a while for it to get where it's going. I thought the first hour was quite good and held you attention but the film somewhat started to lose my interest before building back up to its fine climax. I'd also argue that the boy was so annoying that I think a lot of people will be cheering for something to happen to him. All in all, THE NANNY is certainly worth watching even with it not being overly thrilling for such a thriller.

Aha! Remember those days when they used to stick an old-time Hollywood star in a grim horror flick? WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE started it off, and Bette Davis again features here, as a possibly sinister, possibly innocent nanny to a glacially cold family who have suffered a tragedy.The child actors here are all great, especially William Dix as the disturbed son. Pamela Franklyn, so good in THE INNOCENTS, is also fine as his teenage friend. And Davis herself is in great form, effortlessly dominating the movie.It's not hard to guess what's going on but when the solution comes as to who is guilty it's still gripping and compelling. Most of Hammer's suspensers are fairly routine, but not so here. This and TASTE OF FEAR are probably the best films they churned out in this genre.

There is just something not quite right when Bette Davis stars as an English nanny. And is her 10 year-old charge (William Dix) an emotionally disturbed murderer or just an insolent brat? When it comes to Hammer, I am not terribly familiar with director Seth Holt. Aside from "Blood From the Mummy's Tomb" (1971), he seemed to steer clear of the horror stuff. Even "Nanny" is not horror in the truest sense, leaning more towards suspense or thriller territory.Whereas Holt is not well known to me, writer-producer Jimmy Sangster is something of a legend. Dracula? Frankenstein? Mummy? "The Snorkel"? All Sangster. And he does not disappoint us here, presently a complex psychological tale where each and every character seems to have something wrong with them.The real gem of the picture? Not Bette Davis (who does alright, but I have personally never cared for her). Of course, it would be Pamela Franklin. Probably best known for "Legend of Hell House", she shines here as the teenage neighbor who may be up to no good... though nothing more than harmless trouble. I could watch anything with Franklin in it, which makes it all the more unfortunate that she has not acted in over thirty years.Definitely a better than average film, and a great Hammer film -- even without mad scientists or vampires! (As far as 1965 goes, however, I did prefer "A Study in Terror". But two good films again this month!)