Inn of the Frightened People

Joan Collins stars in this well-crafted British suspense-drama about a grieving family who take the law into their own hands and seek revenge on the man who raped and murdered their young daughter. Sidney Hayers' direction is smooth, the cast(particularly Collins and James Booth) is terrific, and there are some effective shock and suspense sequences, but it's all been done before, and it's pretty dreary and unpleasant stuff.

Being a filmmaker myself, not just a die-hard movie consumer, I know better than anyone that there is no such thing as a perfect film. There are exceptionally good films, true masterpieces, good films, less good films, bad films, very bad films and catastrophically bad films. I would not put this film in any of these categories because it has elements that place it in at least two of the categories, unfortunately not the masterpiece one. Let's call it an almost decent English film, with certain shortcomings. I love the British films of the '50s, '60s, '70s. In those decades, masterpieces were created with the best and most beloved actors and directors. I know them all and others like me know what I mean. Specific about this film: the script is the one with shortcomings, the actors are all very good, excellent I would say, the director Sidney Hayers did a very good job on an imperfect script, the cinematographer supported him with skill, the music is very good. The final product leaves much to be desired, to get something better the entire script should be rewritten, the potential is there. Sidney Hayers has much better films to his credit, I warmly recommend "The Firechasers" (1971), "The Southern Star" (1969) and the absolute masterpiece "The Trap" (1966), with the exceptional Oliver Reed and Rita Tushingham.

Surprisingly, upon watching this, I found that I had never seen it before and that it was most enjoyable, if a little distasteful. The locations, shops and house and pub interiors are most evocative and if some are sets they are very good ones. Joan Collins is also surprisingly good but then she really only has to play at being a barmaid. Gripping from the start, this is a really well paced and intelligently told thriller. Things lurch a little two thirds in but by then we have bought into the rather lurid tale and it was always going to leave something of a bad taste anyway, with little girls being taken on their way to school, so what harm a little incest along the way. Just as the film seems to be loosing pace we have a surprisingly and confrontational ending that leaves you wondering just who the intended audience was for this. Well worth a watch for the open minded.

This was originally called simply "Revenge" but the title was probably changed to avoid confusing it with other films so named, including an American film released the same year.

There is nothing American about this tale of revenge though, rather this is a typical low budget English drama that was quite common in especially the 1960s, albeit with a slightly unusual theme.

The principal characters are the loved ones of a young girl who has been murdered by a sexual predator, a local man believed to be responsible for at least one similar crime. The film begins with this man being released from police custody, apparently against the weight of the evidence.

Obviously this does not go down too well, so our misguided heroes follow him and their brief, distant interaction convinces them he is indeed the killer, so they decide to kidnap him and beat a confession out of him. What could go wrong?

A lot of things, naturally, and there is not one but two twists in the tale. One warning though - don't try this at home Or anywhere else.

Suspected paedophile child-killer Seely (Kenneth Griffith) is released by the police due to insufficient evidence. Pub landlord Jim (James Booth) and Harry (Ray Barrett), the fathers of two of the murdered children, decide to abduct Seely and force a confession from him. Together with Jim's son Lee (Tom Marshall), they bundle the man into their car and take him to the pub, where they push him into the cellar. Things get out of hand, however, and Seely is beaten up by Jim, Harry and Lee, and then strangled by the publican. The men presume Seely to be dead and try to figure out how to dispose of the body, but it later turns out that their victim is still alive, leaving the abductors with the problem of what to do next. Meanwhile, Jim's wife Carol (Joan Collins) discovers the man in the cellar, as does Jim's young daughter Jilly (Zuleika Robson), the situation spiralling more and more out of control.

Revenge starts off in great style, with the tense abduction, brutal beating and apparent killing of Seely, but once this part of is over, the film rapidly runs out of steam, as though the writers didn't know where to go next (at least until the conclusion). The script treads water for a long time, with the characters arguing amongst themselves about how they should handle the problem, whilst trying to keep a couple of pesky policemen at arms length, all of which gets rather repetitive. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film is the question of Seely's guillt: is the man in the cellar really a child-killer, or have they got the wrong man? This eventually comes into play in the final act, when Jim comes to believe that Seely is innocent and tries to make amends... at least until he leaves the man in the pub alone, and Jilly's pretty friend Lucy comes a-calling...

Moderately violent, with some cheap titillation from Collins (the actress appearing in her underwear), Revenge is a passable piece of British sensationalism/exploitation, but I couldn't help but feel that director Sidney Hayers could have pushed the boat out further with the overall grittiness.