Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Luecarou What begins as a feel-good-human-interest story turns into a mystery, then a tragedy, and ultimately an outrage.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

ferbs54 As was the case with many baby boomers, my first encounter with South African-born Glynis Johns, the daughter of renowned Welsh character actor Mervyn Johns, was via her short-lived American TV show, "Glynis." On this 1/2-hour sitcom, which only ran from September-December 1963 on CBS, Glynis played a character named Glynis Granville, a mystery writer who helped her husband solve crimes, and who was absolutely--to my young mind--delightful. A recent viewing of one of Glynis' later films, 1973's "Vault of Horror," served to remind me of just how charming she has always been, with her pretty blonde looks and inimitable husky voice. So it was with great eagerness that I even more recently popped one of her films that I'd never seen, "The Cabinet of Caligari," into the DVD player at home. Released in May 1962, five months before Glynis' 39th birthday, this "remake" of the classic German silent "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1919) jettisons most of the original's story line, salvaging only that famous twist ending. Scripted by Robert "Psycho" Bloch, the film introduces us to 27-year-old Jane Lindstrom (our Glynis), who seeks help at the ultramodern house of Dr. Caligari (Dan O'Herlihy) after her automobile suffers a blowout. The doctor is more than accommodating, but after she is unwittingly drugged, poor Jane realizes that she--and a good half dozen other residents under the doctor's roof--is a prisoner in this bizarre household, while Caligari's demands for highly personal information, as well as his peeping Tom proclivities, abuse of other "guests" and proffering of pornographic pictures, only add to Jane's distress....Though lacking the surreal sets that made the original film an enduring and endearing classic of German Expressionism, the 1962 "Caligari" is still a fairly strange experience. Director Roger Kay utilizes interesting camera angles, freeze frames and occasionally non sequitur dialogue to engender an atmosphere of the macabre. Kay makes excellent use of space in his CinemaScope frame, and yes, DOES throw in some decidedly Expressionistic FX toward the film's conclusion. (I should perhaps add here that those viewers who choose to watch this DVD utilizing the "full-screen" option, rather than the "wide-screen," will be lacking almost 50% of the image, and will certainly be missing most of the picture's impact.) The director is ably abetted by the excellent camera work of John L. Russell, who had lensed "Psycho" for Hitchcock two years earlier (Jane Lindstrom, it might be added, has a bathtub experience in the film that is not QUITE as harrowing as Marion Crane's!), as well as by the lovely and memorable score provided here by Gerald Fried. But surely, this picture belongs to Glynis Johns, who perforce appears in every single scene in it. She is simply superb here, running the gamut from sweet to scared, haggard to Marilyn Monroe-type sexpot, suicidal and submissive to zesty and domineering; practically an Oscar-worthy performance! (And while I'm on the subject, hey, Academy: Glynis is 88 as of this writing. Howzabout an honorary Oscar for this wonderfully unique performer while she's still with us?) Perfectly cast here, she brings a combination of steely outrage and befuddled defenselessness to her role that is quite wonderful to behold, and makes the film--essentially a 100-minute-long red herring--a genuine must-see, and one that can stand independently of its famous forebear....

kirksworks Here is a film that much improves on a second viewing. The first viewing, unfortunately, may turn a lot of people off because of its moderate pace and what comes across as bad writing and bad dialog. But give it a try... or two tries. All that seeming badness is there for a reason. This is the story of Jane, a woman on 'vacation', whose car has a flat. She gets out and walks, ending up at the house of a very powerful and apparently evil man, Caligari, who keeps her captive. Others she meets at the place come across as characters from the Twilight Zone. In fact, everything about this place and its characters, plus the way they interact with Jane, is very off. Characters seem to appear for no reason and sometimes deliver dialog that is purposely over the top and even wildly campy. The plot focuses on Jane's relationship with Caligari, who appears to be some whacked out psychotherapist, and her attempts to escape his psychological as well as real hold on her. Other people at this house try to help her escape... or do they? By the end of the film, though some may see it coming a mile away, everything is put into focus. I wanted to re-watch the film right away, but decided to give it some breathing room. When I finally did re-watch, I was amazed at how much more interesting it was, knowing what I knew from the first viewing.*** SPOILERS NEXT PARAGRAPH:Of course what we learn is that we have been viewing the world through the mind of a mentally deranged woman. Once we see that, as we watch the film the second time, we can see that all the weirdness, bad dialog and bizarre character behavior was really Jane's mind playing tricks on her. The tricks reveal what a state of denial Jane is in about her fear of aging and losing her beauty. I'm sure many women have problems facing this aspect of their lives. The visuals of the film and concepts like a revolving door to enter Caligari's office, the twisted stairwell, the stark lighting, and effective use of still images, all contribute to creating a very uneasy state of mind. When I first watched, some scenes truly creeped me out, though they made me laugh at the same time. On second viewing, they still creeped me out, but the laughter was gone. The major flaw in the script is that following a major mental trauma Jane is considered "cured" and well enough to leave what we find out is not Caligari's 'home', but a mental institution. *** END SPOILERS This movie is certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's an imaginative remake of the 1919 expressionist "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," minus the somnambulist and the bizarre sets. Yet the remake's visuals hearken back to the design of the original. The twisted stairwell, an amazing hallway dream sequence that could have been right out of the 1919 film, the psychologically conceived sets and often artificial lighting really recreate the mood of the old film.Glynis Johns is quite effective as Jane. She plays her right on the edge. Her conversations with Caligari (Dan O'Herlihy) are laughably disturbing. Often Jane's shock of what she sees is our shock as well. I know many find this film just plain terrible, but I think it has many surprises if you give it a chance (or two!). Gerald Fried's inventive score fleshes out Jane's state of mind beautifully. "Caligari" may have been pitched as a horror film, but it's not. If you go into it thinking it's a fright film, you'll be disappointed. As a voyage into the depths of insanity, though, it has a lot going for it. Just like Jane, who enters a house expecting one thing only to find something very different, you need to know what you're getting yourself into before watching!

christopher-underwood Something just that little bit different here and something really rather good. The slightly odd or seeming unlikely happenings, including the casting of Glynis Johns all make sense by the end, at least as far as I am concerned. Great sets help create a 'modern' but nevertheless creepy feel and Gerald Fried's score is most effective. A very simple idea is admirably sustained and every now and then when we feel things cannot go on like this for much longer we are jolted, either by the outrageousness of Caligari or by the sudden appearance of another guest. I had never even heard of this film before the appearance of the DVD and wonder if indeed it ever opened in the UK. The sexual references and physical violence certainly surprised me for a film of the early 60's. Well worth seeing.

CatTales What was Robert Bloch thinking when he wrote this? As weird as the character's interactions are (no understandable motivations), the dialogue is full of dramatic clichés out of any context, like clips from a soap opera. Not a very thrilling blend for a horror movie. The original 1920 movie involved mesmerism and somnambulism: this film does both - it will hypnotise you into sleep immediately, even in the light of day. However, if you can stay awake, the story does have some dramatic impact, and the acting is fine throughout. The twist ending was done one better in a very similar 1950's EC comics (ie Tales from the Crypt) where the woman is cured but starts to have a relapse that cycles her back to the beginning of the story (a la "Dead of night").