Alicia I love this movie so much

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Wizard-8 "Fear In The Night" was an attempt by Hammer Studios to try something different than usual, but it was rejected both by critics and audiences. Seeing it today, it's pretty easy to see why it wasn't embraced. For starters, the movie is much too long for its slight story - it would have worked much better had it played out as a half hour (or full hour) television show. But the padding out is not the only problem. While the movie does eventually reveal some twists in the last half hour, most viewers will have predicted these twists long before they are revealed. And while the movie does provide some answers, there are some questions that are never answered, like exactly why the person who kept attacking Judy Geeson's character was doing so. In the end, the movie can only be recommended to very patient viewers who have never seen a twist-filled thriller before in their lives.

Jonathon Dabell Fear In The Night is a late entry in Hammer's sub-genre of contemporary psychological thrillers. While most commonly remembered for its Gothic horrors, the studio frequently tried its hand at other stuff (historical swashbucklers, prehistoric adventures, TV comedy spin-offs, sci-fi, etc.) Their modern-based thrillers include such movies as Taste Of Fear, The Maniac, Nightmare, Crescendo and Straight On Till Morning. Fear In The Night marks the final time Hammer regular Jimmy Sangster directed a film for the studio, and he brings a reasonably intriguing sense of mystery to the proceedings. It's a very low-key, low-budget affair – almost along the lines of a filmed stage play – and when you've seen it once it's not a film that encourages repeat viewings (without the fun of anticipating the twist in the tail, there's not much else to it).Recovering from a nervous breakdown, pretty but vulnerable Peggy (Judy Geeson) marries a charming school teacher, Robert Heller (Ralph Bates). She plans to move into a house with Robert inside the grounds of the well-to-do public school where he works. However, shortly before the move, Peggy is assaulted by a mysterious assailant. She blacks out during the attack, but before she faints she manages to pull off the attacker's false arm. Later, a still-jittery Peggy arrives at her new home at the school. Here she meets the Headmaster's wife, Molly Carmichael (Joan Collins), an abrupt and bitchy type who instantly makes Peggy feel less than welcome. She also meets the Headmaster, Michael Carmichael (Peter Cushing). Michael demonstrates some downright eccentric behaviour, such as teaching in empty classrooms and playing tape recordings of pupils' voices… but none of that is as disturbing to Peggy as the realisation that Michael has a false arm….The four main characters are quite nicely played overall. Geeson is surrounded by some pretty heavyweight talent but she rises to the role very well; Bates creates an interesting characterisation in a rare contemporary role; Collins (an actress I usually really dislike) is particularly memorable as the film's super-bitch; and ever-reliable Cushing only gets around ten minutes of screen time but makes every second of it count in his pivotal guest cameo. The story unfolds slowly – sometimes too slowly? – but generates intrigue on the whole. There's a nicely controlled atmosphere thanks to the secluded deserted-school locale, and Sangster clearly relishes punctuating the story with various red herrings and open-ended exchanges of dialogue. The twist, when it comes, is rather clever. As noted earlier, though, the twist also provides the film with its main appeal… so once the audience is "in" on the film's secret there aren't many reasons to watch it again. Overall, Fear In The Night is a competently made but undistinguished suspenser in the 'Diabolique' mould.

MARIO GAUCI Sangster's third and final film as director forsakes the Gothic trappings of the first two for the psycho-thrillers which Hammer occasionally dabbled in (inspired by LES DIABOLIQUES [1954] and kick-started by the Sangster-penned TASTE OF FEAR [1961]).As such, it's a pretty solid entry in the genre: well-made (the last half-hour being especially tense), stylish (making subtle use of elliptical editing, careful not to go overboard as was the case with STRAIGHT ON TILL MORNING [1972]) and sporting a compact but most able cast - Judy Geeson (her inherent vulnerability is suited to this type of frightened lady role), Joan Collins (going through a horror/thriller phase at the time and who's, of course, alluringly bitchy), Ralph Bates (it took me some time to accept him in a modern setting since he's so comfortably placed in the Gothic world of his other stuff for Hammer, but there's no denying that he does quite well by his role here!) and Peter Cushing (superlative as always, he has a field day with an ambiguous characterization); incidentally, Cushing and Collins must be one of the most incongruous husband-and-wife pairings in film history!As one can gather from the above, I liked the film quite a bit and, in fact, pondered for a while the notion of awarding it a *** rating but was, ultimately, deterred from doing so by a couple of flaws: the 'ingenious' plot is, actually, fairly predictable (but, if anything, it's even more fun to be able to anticipate the many twists involved!); however, this also means that one has to labor through a first half that is both slow and repetitive!! I do feel that it's underrated in the Hammer canon: Leonard Maltin dismisses it, for instance, but Leslie Halliwell - not usually one to bother much with the company's latter-day output - is surprisingly complimentary in his review.While FEAR IN THE NIGHT more or less adheres to Hammer's formula for this type of film - an innocent girl having a brush with murder and madness in remote surroundings - it also draws parallels to the contemporary giallos, especially with its device of a black-gloved stalker. Incidentally, of Hammer's 10 modern suspensers, I've only got two more to catch up with - MANIAC (1963) and CRESCENDO (1970).The Audio Commentary here proves disappointing - not because it isn't informative but, rather, due to the fact that we get an awful lot of repetition of Sangster's anecdotes from his tracks for THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN (1970) and LUST FOR A VAMPIRE (1971); to be fair to him, the fault lies more with moderator Marcus Hearn - who should have come up with a fresher set of questions, as it were. Then again, I'd have expected more insight into the actual construction of the script (a psycho thriller being, fundamentally, more intricate than a Gothic horror) - but it's safe to assume that, after all these years, Sangster recalls precious little about this aspect...although he does mention that he had pitched the script to the company as early as 1963, and that it was originally intended to be set on a boat! The discussion also touches upon Hammer's other suspensers: apart from citing TASTE OF FEAR and THE NANNY (1965) as his favorite films, Sangster mentions that Orson Welles turned up unannounced one day on the set of MANIAC; in connection with the film under review - which, incidentally, brought Sangster's fortuitous association with Hammer to a close - he acknowledges the fact that Peter Cushing was basically serving the same function (i.e. a red herring) that Christopher Lee did in TASTE OF FEAR.

Lee Eisenberg "Fear in the Night" has a familiar plot (people move into country house and strange things start happening). Set in a boarding school in the British countryside, the movie doesn't quite live up to its potential, but has some neat surprises along the way. Maybe I should have predicted the ending, but I didn't. The movie's strength seems to be mostly in its gradual revelation of things, and the case of a possible mental breakdown.And the cast? Well, Peter Cushing - as the headmaster - obviously adds a good dimension with his eerie stare. I guess that by 1972, it was a given that any English horror movie had to star Peter Cushing and/or Christopher Lee. Judy Geeson, as the tormented young bride, is gorgeous as ever and has the perfect appearance for someone seeking into despair. Ralph Bates, as her husband, is pretty routine. Joan Collins, as the headmaster's wife, is also pretty routine.So, for the most part, there's nothing particularly special about this movie, but it's not terrible by any stretch. It's probably a must for Hammer fans. Oh, and Judy Geeson is really hot.