Night Must Fall

Even after 55 years Albert Finney's performance as the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde womanizer who can turn into a deranged psychotic killer at the slightest of conversations is not to be missed. I think this film is an under rated classic and in the same realm as Psycho.

A must see if you enjoy thrillers.

To each his own taste, but I have to disagree with the other review of this movie. I love Albert Finney's performance as a psychopath who has the gift of perceiving the innermost needs of those he meets and then molding his own personality to take advantage of those needs. (I don't know anyone from Wales, nor do I know what a stereotypical "mad Welshman" is.) He and Mona Washbourne play off each other superbly. I do agree with the other review's assessment of the cinematography, and especially love the lighting. To see Finney in TOM JONES (previous) or TWO FOR THE ROAD (following), although he is young, his face does have character and expression lines - he is human. The lighting in this movie smooths his face to make it seem devoid of affect; you feel that his reactions to the people and the world around him spring not from human emotion but from insanity. If you're an Albert Finney fan I definitely recommend viewing this movie and making your own judgment.

The remake of the 1937 film was slaughtered both by critics and audience at the time it premiered and there was mainly one reason for it:the crazed fans of Albert Finney were absolutely shocked,as he daringly chose the role of the psychotic ''killer with the angelic face'', following his all-time favorite roles of ''Saturday night and Sunday morning''and, particularly, ''Tom Jones''.As many historians mention, the ''MGM wives'' who were few of the first to see the film, turned violently against the gifted director, Karel Reisz, shouting ''what have you done to that beautiful boy?''!But this is not a serious reason to dismiss an, overall, very good film, which, however, has some serious flaws.The use of music is exaggerated and some times irritating and, only in the first part of the film, Finney doesn't quite know how to tackle with his disturbed character. But the photography is great, Mona Washbourne gives a superb performance and Karel Reisz does a great job, not only updating the old text and bringing it within the ''realism'' of the British Free Cinema movement, but also with his masterful camera movements and his use of editing and abruptly cutting to different scenes, he creates an imposing psychological thriller, where what you don't see is more disturbing than what you do. Being one of the greatest actors EVER, Finney soon finds a convincing attitude for his character and the last part of the film is absolutely brilliant as a whole.It should be re-examined and re-appreciated, that's why it has to come out on VHS and DVD a.s.a.p.! 7.5/10

This project was done in a hurry when a proposal to make a film of Ned Kelly was axed by MGM due to budget worries (at this time Tom Jones had been filmed but not released).

It is not clear why Riesz decided to make a film of this play. Clearly, the part of Danny is tailor made for some show-off acting and Finney grabs the bull by the horns here. His only real mistake is to put on a silly 'boyo Welsh accent. True, the character was Welsh in the play but that's because the part was written by the playwright to play himself. Otherwise, there is no dramatic need for Danny to have a Welsh accent and Robert Montgomery didn't bother in the 1937 version.

The main difference between the film and the play is that the film reveals its hand in the first minute that Danny is a psycho killer. In the play, its not clear until near the end and much of the dialogue are cat n'mouse exchanges between Danny and Olivia.

The result of this is to create a somewhat boring film; you know who the killer is and thus spend an hour and a hour waiting for him to explode. When he does, it has little logic and, to an audience used to the likes of Psycho and its rip-offs like Homicidal, seeing Finney deliver one blow to an off-screen body that you never get to see was always going to be a serious let-down. His retreat into gibberish at the end I thought was uncharacteristic and a cop-out. You never find out who the real Danny is and why he has acted like he has done. I did enjoy the 'hangbags' between Sheila Hancock and Susan Hampshire on the high street of an authentically 60s wet Hertfordshire town.

I loved this film, but it's not for everybody. There are many experimental aspects (music, camera angles, the performances) that reflect the time period in which it was filmed. Think Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe, Dr. Strangelove, Psycho, etc, and you'll be more prepared. It came the year after Tom Jones and was co-produced by Finney, and as a result, was not the kind of film Finney fans were expecting. I suspect that is why the film is not more well known.

A couple of IMDb viewers were rather harsh concerning Finney's performance, but I have to disagree. I was completely mesmerized and I highly recommend it.

Probably not a good movie to watch on a dark stormy night by yourself. At the same time, don't expect a typical horror film--I was thrown off by the very beginning and halfway through, I was questioning what I had seen--I think this was deliberate, and has a lot to do with Danny's character. I think this is a cautionary tale more than anything else. You'll understand what I mean if you've seen it.