BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

hwg1957-102-265704 A woman returns to England after the death of her father and inherits his property. There are however people who don't want her to inherit and attempts are made on her life. She and an old friend investigate and doubts are raised about her father's death and how drug selling may be involved. It is a moderate mystery with the main villain being obvious. The best scenes are probably the duck hunting expedition and the chasing of the said main villain at the end. Otherwise Terence Fisher directs in a pedestrian way.Rona Anderson and Guy Rolfe as the main leads are given routine roles. More interesting are Peter Jones as a somewhat creepy Lips Leonard and the great Alan Wheatley as Hughes who quietly steals all the scenes he is in. Stanley Baker has a small part where he only has to look slightly mad but does it well enough. Dennis Harkin is amusing as Jimmy-The-One. The music score is provided by Malcolm Arnold no less but is not as memorable as a lot of his many others.

Leofwine_draca HOME TO DANGER is one of Terence Fisher's most nondescript films as director. It's a low budget little thriller, set in and around a country house, that involves the death of a wealthy man and the reading of his will. His daughter inherits the estate and allows the owners of a small charity to live in the property with her, but somebody who is determined to get their hands on the wealth is willing to kill for it.It's predictable and cheap-looking stuff indeed, and the most notable thing about the production is Fisher's direction, which makes the film look more expensive and stylish than it is. Otherwise the story plods along a bit and the performances are anything but invigorating. Rona Anderson has done better work elsewhere, Guy Rolfe feels somehow extraneous as the heroic character shoehorned into the plot, and only a youthful Stanley Baker really shines as the simple-minded manservant. I also found it hard to warm to a bunch of characters who took obvious delight in the killing of wildlife. The use of stirring music at the climax brings to mind the James Bernard score of Fisher's Dracula.

Goingbegging If, like myself, you were just wanting a glimpse of Stanley Baker before he was famous, don't bother. The man is literally unrecognisable, both facially and in screen personality, playing a mentally sub-normal servant in an elegant country house. Unfortunately he doesn't carry much conviction in the role, and just trogs about like the Holy Fool with Frankenstein thrown in. The Baker we love to hate was still a year or two away.You should remember that this was only a supporting feature, just over an hour long, and as such, it provides undemanding fare. Sixty years on, this is its charm, with every cliché in place, almost an Agatha Christie story, with a shooting-party, the regulation retired major, some deferential police, and an upper-class smoothie (Guy Rolfe) squiring an impossibly beautiful Rona Anderson as the heiress whose new fortune has suddenly put her life in danger. All flavoured with the blend of cut-glass English and Shepperton cockney, without which no 1951 thriller was complete.Alan Wheatley is just a little too unctuous as the boss of a children's charity, so we're not exactly unprepared for trouble in paradise. Terence Fisher's direction was generally praised, though it didn't really need that opening scene at the airport to establish that the young lady was returning from abroad. And Francis Lister fans may be interested to catch him here in his last film, still on fine form.

malcolmgsw This is the type of thriller where the ends don't all join up.What we know for certain from the very beginning is that Alan Wheatley is the murderer,simply because this is the role that he plays in nearly every film.However what is not quite as clear is why he is doing in all and sundry.We have Stanley Baker in a very early role playing a servant who is prepared to go to any lengths to protect his mistress.However there are too many unanswered questions.Like what is funny old Peter Jones doing in a role of a hit-man.Why is Alan Wheatley the head of a children's charity and a drug dealer at the same time.I could raise many points like this but none have a satisfactory answer.Thankfully it only lasts just over an hour so not much chance of getting bored.