Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Alex da Silva George Sanders (Jaffrey) is called to the family home – the House of Seven Gables – where his father Gilbert Emery tells him that he has to sell the house. Brother Vincent Price (Clifford) is keen on the idea but Sanders is not. Sanders has read that there is a fortune buried somewhere within the walls but Price is having none of it. There is also a curse that has been placed on the family. Does this curse come true? Which brother gets the upper hand? The film has an interesting title and an interesting beginning with a set-up that raises hopes for a good film. Unfortunately, everything just peters out and there is not much happening in this effort. I was expecting a spooky offering involving a house with some secrets unravelling themselves. It's nothing like that. Basically nothing happens. Vincent Price provides some hilarious over-the-top bad acting at the end of a court case when he breaks into hysterical laughter, deserved of a 60's camp horror film. And Sanders' final scene is equally appalling. Yep – the whole affair is a let-down.

Neil Doyle Despite the fact that this is a compressed and revised version of the Hawthorne novel, THE HOUSE OF THE SEVEN GABLES manages to overcome its budget limitations (on a B-film scale) to become an interesting, if over-plotted version of the original story.Margaret Lindsay, who usually had second femme leads at Warner Brothers during the '30s, is the central character here and acquits herself admirably. She's so good as the repressed Cousin Hepzibah, a bitter woman who becomes a reclusive owner of the house, that's it's a wonder she didn't have a bigger career. Others in the cast, including George Sanders, Vincent Price, Nan Grey, Dick Foran and Cecil Kellaway, perform admirably too. In fact, the acting is on the strong side and better than the script deserves.But for all its strengths, the story is too complex to be told in 90 minutes and much had to be handled too swiftly to give any of the characters real depth. It's a nice try, and the film itself is worth seeing as a product of its time.

fguerras I was absolutely knocked out by Margaret Lindsay's (NOT Lockwood !!!) bravura performance in this film. It is inconceivable that she wasn't nominated, but 1940 was one of the most competitive Best Actress years ever. She ran the gamut from lovely young girl to pinched spinster. Her range was worthy of Bette Davis (with whom she co-starred many times). I loved the film itself also, and was inspired to read the book, which I loved as well. Miss Lindsay should have received more comment from students of good acting in all these years since the film. She definitely gave one of the finest performances I have ever seen by an actress in the movies, and I'm 63 !

tsmith-22 I didn't notice the knuckle-biting faux pas noticed by the last commentator, but agree with him that the acting is very well done. Margaret Lockwood is outstanding! I disagree that the book is better. The movie is far better. This is House of the Seven Gables as if it was written by Nat's buddy, Herman Melville--it's got some real romance and intensity about it as a result of changing the relationships around. It also has some anti-racist, anti-slave politics completely absent from the book. When is it going DVD--I'll scoop it right up!Now if only somebody would get around to filming Melville's PIERRE!