Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

snicewanger The were some very talented people involved with the making of this motion picture. However most of them, actors , production staff, and and the technicians,had a stronger background in television production than in the movies.Perhaps this why it has the look and feel of a padded TV movie. This was producer, director Roger Kay's only venture into a theater released production. All the rest of his work as a producer, director, and writer was in television.Credited screenplay writer Robert Bloch was so unhappy with many changes made in his script by Kay that he attempted to have his name removed from the screen credits. The writers guild did not permit it.Apparently the problem was that Bloch saw it as a true horror film and Kay directed it as a film about the nightmares of insanity. Glynis Johns handles the staring role as best she can and gives a well rounded performance as the confused and terrified Jane Lindstrom. Dan O'Herlihy really hams it up as the the ruthless and emotionally brutal Caligari but given the circumstances of the character,his over the top performance was called for. Constance Ford played the cool , aloft, and bitchy Christine with her usual aplomb. She could due this kind of role in her sleep. In a 1981 interview Glynis Johns talked about her cute and sweet persona in film ans television. She briefly mentioned Caligari, She said that she was 39 years old at the time the movie was made and didn't feel comfortable with the seduction scene so a body double was used for the leg and pantie shots Dick Davalos said the final script was much different than the one he originally read for, particularly the ending. But that is not unusual in movies.If the movie is a hit then no one gripes if not then everyone blames the screenplay. Cabinet of Caligari is an okay movie that could have been a great deal better. It's worth a look but it is not a memorable film.

Mike-764 Jane Lindstrom is on vacation when her car gets a flat tire and she walks a long way before ending up at the house of Caligari who welcomes her in. After a strange night in the house, Jane feels uneasy around Caligari, as well as other people living in the house, so she asks to leave but she finds out that no one can help her to leave and she is unable to escape by herself. She finds a friend in Mark, a young man, as well as Paul, an intellectual man with a medical background. As Jane tries to break Caligari, she finds out that her attempts to free herself from the house and the spell of Caligari is becoming hopeless. This is not a remake of the 1919 classic, but does have the expressionistic elements of the original, as well as have its own feel with Jane's descent into madness. Johns gives one of her best and more complex performances and O'Herlihy is very spooky as the title character. Fried's musical score is used brilliantly in the film and is probably the best aspect of the movie. Bloch's script does have nice twists at the end, but is seems to go nowhere for the first hour of the film. Rating, 6.

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre The 1962 movie 'The Cabinet of Caligari' (notice that the title does NOT include the word 'Doctor') is often described in reference books and horror-movie magazines as a remake of the classic German silent film 'The Cabinet of DOCTOR Caligari'. It may have been screenwriter Robert Bloch's intention to script a remake of 'Dr Caligari', but the end result which we see here only crudely resembles that silent horror classic ... and the resemblance is mostly handled in dishonest ways. This 1962 'Caligari' has its merits as a creepy tale of psychological suspense, but it certainly isn't a horror film. This movie's dishonest title forces us to compare this film to 'Dr Caligari'. On its own merits (and this movie does have small but genuine merits), this is a minor film that should not be considered a horror movie at all.The IMDb synopsis for this movie describes the premise accurately. Glynis Johns was a poor choice for the crucial lead role in this film. She usually played airy simpletons (as in 'Mary Poppins'), and her whispery voice (which sounds a bad imitation of Joan Greenwood) fails to convey the intellectual weight necessary for this role. The protagonist of this film is an imprisoned woman named Jane Lindstrom; the plot line requires Jane to be sexually attractive but NOT sexually active nor even sexually curious. At one point, when the mysterious stranger Caligari shows Jane some pornographic photos, she is shocked and frightened. Glynis Johns simply wasn't a good enough actress to portray such a woman. And frankly, Glynis Johns (unlike Joan Greenwood, the genuine article) just isn't sexy enough for this role.At one point, the adult Jane witnesses a flashback of herself as a little girl. The child actress who plays Jane in this brief sequence is much prettier than Glynis Johns. Also, Glynis Johns has a prominent mole near her left eye, and the little girl doesn't have this: for these two reasons, the flashback is unconvincing.Richard Davalos is very good as a handsome young man who seems to be aroused by Jane. (To say more than this about his character would be a spoiler.) Davalos was an underrated actor who never got the acclaim he deserved: after his brilliant performance as James Dean's brother in 'East of Eden', Davalos's career went downhill steadily until he ended up playing a bearded lady(!) in 'Something Wicked This Way Comes': an excellent film overall, but a poor performance in a weak role.There's no cabinet of any significance in 'Cabinet of Caligari': they just wanted to crib the old title. This movie has a surprise ending which I shan't spoil for you, although you'll likely guess it a mile off. (I guessed it only half a mile off, but the lady who watched this movie with me guessed it before I did.)One of my favourite aspects of the original silent 'Cabinet of Doctor Caligari' was the weird nightmarish set design, which conveyed the deranged mental state of the film's madman narrator. The lobby cards and posters for the 1962 'Caligari' prominently featured weirdly distorted architecture, implying that this movie is indeed a remake of the silent classic. Unfortunately, you won't see any of that weird architecture in this movie except for a very brief montage just before the surprise ending is revealed. I consider this dishonest, as if the filmmakers decided "We have to bung in a few seconds of nightmare footage so that we can show distorted set designs in the publicity campaign. That way, we can fob off this movie as a remake of the real 'Caligari'." Really, this whole film conveys an air of someone consciously lying in a deliberate attempt to convince us we're watching a remake of that silent classic.The original silent 'Caligari' rates 10 out of 10. This 1962 movie barely rates a 4. But I do recommend this movie, providing you know in advance that it's NOT a remake.

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").