Movie Stats:
Released 1967 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Terence Young
Stars - Audrey Hepburn, Richard Crenna, Alan Arkin
Plot Summary:
Newly blind Susy Hendrix (Hepburn) is terrorized by a group of criminals—including Mike Talman (Crenna) & Roat (Arkin)—who are searching for a doll that is stuffed with heroin.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
I thought the criminals’ plan was overly complicated. It was difficult to buy into the idea that they would bother with the theatrics when they were already [SPOILER] involved in one murder. Why wouldn’t they just kill Susy once it was clear she didn’t know where the doll was? Or take her hostage and force her husband to look for it? [SPOILER]
I felt that Talman and Carlino (Jack Weston) fell too easily under Roat’s control. [SPOILER] Once they helped him move the body, they could’ve gone back to the apartment and spent a few hours wiping everything down. They knew no one was there. With no body in the apartment, there was no reason for the police to be in there looking for fingerprints anyway. [SPOILER]
It’s not great at explaining things. For example, why does Roat call Carlino “sergeant” and why does he hate it? (I believe the movie implies here & in other places that he used to be a cop.) There were lots of little unanswered questions like this that annoyed me.
Good Stuff:
While I thought the plot was implausible, I enjoyed the cat & mouse quality of the film.
Really loved the costuming & set design, especially the costuming.
Arkin was absolutely chilling.
About the Performance:
I was skeptical of Hepburn playing a blind character, but I thought she did a good job. (It’s perhaps convenient that Susy is recently blind, so anything Hepburn did that seemed like something a sighted person might do could be hand-waved away.) The underlying message of the film is about Susy needing to learn how to take care of herself, rather than relying on others, and I thought she played it right. Susy is sometimes strong, shrewd, creative, and intelligent, and sometimes helplessly terrified, weak, and too trusting. It felt realistic to me, because in real life everyone is a mix of contradictions.
Other performances of Hepburn’s I’ve reviewed: My Fair Lady.
The Verdict:
For the most part, I liked it. Clearly, I feel that it has plot/story issues. It asks you to suspend a lot of disbelief, and I’m not sure that I’m willing to do that. However, I liked the tension that it created. It’s definitely a film that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The performances are very good. Plus, it’s a feast for the eyes. I’m not going to put it on a favorites list, but I’m glad that I saw this classic once.
I give it 3.75 stars.
2 comments:
When we had a regular theater company to attend (O! how I miss them!)they did a performance of this. It was a very small theater so you were literally right on the edge of the action and it was a super scary play. I screamed at one point.
I have not seen the movie, but my mother told me about it at some point during my adolescence. I made a mental note that should I become blind not to forget to take the light bulb out of the refrigerator.
I am also just now realizing that when I was growing up, I was more likely to get summaries of movies than to watch them, probably because it was more difficult to watch them then. You had to go to the video store, and the video store might not even have it. Now I would just schedule a viewing with my hypothetical daughter.
A local theater company just did a production of it here! However, I didn't go. I could see how this would be very intense in person, especially in a darkened theater.
Post a Comment