I agree with most (at this time only five!) reviewers, that this movie is pretty bad. Weird enough one of them on the contrary gave a raving review (and a mind-boggling 10!), comparing it to no less than Hitchcock. Well, this movie could help young film-students to learn exactly why Hitchcock was such a great director and what's wrong with this film. Because the premise isn't that bad at all, and Hitchcock could probably have made it into a terrific movie.
Here almost everything fails: the direction, the extreme lame dialogues, the lack-lustre photography and colors, the editing, causing all kinds of sudden leaps in the continuity, and last but not least the acting. Except for trusted old pro's David Huddleston and Virginia Mayo, the maker chose (for artistic reasons? or more probably on account of a low budget) for the younger parts mainly amateurs, who dutiful but without any conviction recited their learned-by-heart lines. How former Hollywood-beauty Mayo, here at age 77, ended up in this (her last) production beats me, to be honest it didn't do her legacy any justice. The only positive thing I can say is that the three young actors all were very good-looking, that's at least worth something; although their looks were wasted on this film.
I guess the ambitions were aimed way to high for the low budget, and the fact that writer, director and producer were united in one person probably didn't help either: no-one to control and correct one of the others.
