The Cabinet of Caligari (1962) User Reviews

See It For Glynis

[ferbs54 · 7/10 · 9 April 2012]

As was the case with many baby boomers, my first encounter with South African-born Glynis Johns, the daughter of renowned Welsh character actor Mervyn Johns, was via her short-lived American TV show, "Glynis." On this 1/2-hour sitcom, which only ran from September-December 1963 on CBS, Glynis played a character named Glynis Granville, a mystery writer who helped her husband solve crimes, and who was absolutely--to my young mind--delightful. A recent viewing of one of Glynis' later films, 1973's "Vault of Horror," served to remind me of just how charming she has always been, with her pretty blonde looks and inimitable husky voice. So it was with great eagerness that I even more recently popped one of her films that I'd never seen, "The Cabinet of Caligari," into the DVD player at home. Released in May 1962, five months before Glynis' 39th birthday, this "remake" of the classic German silent "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1919) jettisons most of the original's story line, salvaging only that famous twist ending. Scripted by Robert "Psycho" Bloch, the film introduces us to 27-year-old Jane Lindstrom (our Glynis), who seeks help at the ultramodern house of Dr. Caligari (Dan O'Herlihy) after her automobile suffers a blowout. The doctor is more than accommodating, but after she is unwittingly drugged, poor Jane realizes that she--and a good half dozen other residents under the doctor's roof--is a prisoner in this bizarre household, while Caligari's demands for highly personal information, as well as his peeping Tom proclivities, abuse of other "guests" and proffering of pornographic pictures, only add to Jane's distress....

Though lacking the surreal sets that made the original film an enduring and endearing classic of German Expressionism, the 1962 "Caligari" is still a fairly strange experience. Director Roger Kay utilizes interesting camera angles, freeze frames and occasionally non sequitur dialogue to engender an atmosphere of the macabre. Kay makes excellent use of space in his CinemaScope frame, and yes, DOES throw in some decidedly Expressionistic FX toward the film's conclusion. (I should perhaps add here that those viewers who choose to watch this DVD utilizing the "full-screen" option, rather than the "wide-screen," will be lacking almost 50% of the image, and will certainly be missing most of the picture's impact.) The director is ably abetted by the excellent camera work of John L. Russell, who had lensed "Psycho" for Hitchcock two years earlier (Jane Lindstrom, it might be added, has a bathtub experience in the film that is not QUITE as harrowing as Marion Crane's!), as well as by the lovely and memorable score provided here by Gerald Fried. But surely, this picture belongs to Glynis Johns, who perforce appears in every single scene in it. She is simply superb here, running the gamut from sweet to scared, haggard to Marilyn Monroe-type sexpot, suicidal and submissive to zesty and domineering; practically an Oscar-worthy performance! (And while I'm on the subject, hey, Academy: Glynis is 88 as of this writing. Howzabout an honorary Oscar for this wonderfully unique performer while she's still with us?) Perfectly cast here, she brings a combination of steely outrage and befuddled defenselessness to her role that is quite wonderful to behold, and makes the film--essentially a 100-minute-long red herring--a genuine must-see, and one that can stand independently of its famous forebear....

An emotionally fragile women unwittingly enters the realm of the sadist Caligari and can find no escape

[snicewanger · 6/10 · 27 April 2016]

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.

Cabinet of Caligari

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 28 June 2008]

Driving through a tunnel into the great unknown of "freedom", with her shoes off no less, Jane(Glynis Johns) faces quite a predicament with her car's tire blows out. After a mile or so trek down the lonesome, uninhabited road leading to the gate of a mansion, Jane believes she's found help when the resident's owner, Caligari(Dan O'Herlihy)offers to send someone to fix her vehicle. Told the vehicle has more than just tire damage, Jane's offered refuge, but finds herself trapped within the (electric) gates of the estate with Caligari not allowing her access out. The rest of the film shows Jane's attempts at getting out of the clutches of Caligari and finding others within the estate seemingly trapped as her. But, as Caligari would later inform her..nothing is what it seems.

Thanks to the success of "Psycho" which perhaps opened a door to explore more psycho-sexual subject matter, that film's writer, Robert Bloch, had an opportunity to explore similar terrain. Caligari, a sinister figure who seems to remain in his little office, unscrupulously forward with questions of Jane's sexual history, desiring to know everything about her. He makes it known that he will not touch Jane, and seems like a perverted sadist who gets his jollies listening to female captives baring their record, naked to him. Characters present on Caligari's estate, Christine(Constance Ford), his dutiful servant who seems eager to carry out any wish, no matter how cruel it might seem, Paul, a mannered gent with a quiet calm whose role seems uncertain, often consoling a tormented Jane wishing to leave. Mark(Richard Davalos), a handsome fellow Jane befriends at a gathering of folks at Caligari's dinner table..Mark is transfixed with her, but only can see her at night, for some reason, so wishing to part with her from the estate. Frank(Lawrence Dobkin)who offers Jane a chance to possibly break free, who seems to be in charge of holding others inside, only allowing certain people out(..like a nosy cook/maid). Ruth(Estelle Winwood)seems to be in the same predicament as Jane, a prisoner only allowed access out to the town every once in a while. When Ruth promises Jane a chance to leave, it seems she is beaten to death by Frank with Caligari standing present with Christine. But, overall, it's a film about Jane and her attempts to leave the estate which holds her captive. Watching as she slowly deteriorates emotionally, Glynis Johns provides us with a sympathetic character who seems robbed of her freedom, forced into remaining in this place with eyes around every corner encountered by friendlies who wish to chat and converse. I will say that the ambiguous nature of the behavior of the characters present in Jane's orbit and their dialogue which often hides certain things from her, talking in riddles, comes together when the film reaches it's climax. Bloch, I felt(..perhaps, I'm one of a few), crafts a nifty little psychological tale where you are kept guessing, like Jane, as to what are the true motivations of everyone around Jane, and why is she being held against her will. I found the lurid dialogue, for a film made in '62, rather startling because the confrontations between captor and prisoner often probe areas of a sexual nature. Johns has a magnificent scene where she attempts to seduce Caligari, desperate at this point, believing he might be impotent, hoping to fracture his psyche a bit...by cracking his foundation, she would've at least given him a taste of his own medicine. The film is as Caligari tells Jane..nothing is as it seems. Keep that in mind. Director Kay and writer Bloch really keep you at bay, with Jane encountering some strange situations that are often head-scratching..that is, until you find out the "real truth" of what ails Jane.

Perhaps a sleeper if one can shake off the comparisons to the German silent masterpiece of the same name..just approach this as a different film, and you might enjoy it more.

A favorite moment

[PaulCurt · 14 July 2001]

There's one little moment that stood out for me when I watched this movie years ago on the USA network:

Glynis Johns spends most of the movie in some sort of conflict with Dan O'Herlihy playing Dr. Caligari...it's the sort of psych-out contest seen in every episode of The Prisoner and other war-of-wills dramas. Up to this point Ms. Johns is rather prim and after a while this can become irritating to viewers who are used to seeing female protagonists stand up for themselves more vigorously. After a frustrating argument with Dr. C, she runs upstairs, throws herself on the bed and (instead of sobbing or sulking, as her uptight character has behaved so far) lets out a huge WAAAAAA-HAAAAAAH! My girlfriend and I both collapsed with laughter ...but after that moment found ourselves much more in sympathy with her, and that is precisely the effect intended by Robert Bloch.

Overall the movie was worth the time it took to watch, but didn't stand out as a favorite for either of us. But when we encountered something frustrating after that, we'd look at each other and shout, "Waaaa-Hahhh!"

"Nobody gets out of here. Not 'til morning."

[hwg1957-102-265704 · 6/10 · 5 December 2020]

Not really a remake of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) but it has a few echoes, being a psychological drama not a horror movie. There is fascinating dialogue, a well created central main set of the mansion interior, apt cinematography with a few surreal flourishes and a music score by Gerald Fried that suits the off centre ambience of the movie. The only problem I had was, what does it all mean? There are lots of good moments but they don't really add up. How much was dream, how much was reality? How was Jane cured?

Still, I enjoyed it. Glynis Johns as Jane stretched her thespian skills more than it usually happened in her numerous film roles and she was excellent. Dan O'Herlihy as Caligari and Paul was compelling too (though his unique voice gave away the fact he was playing two people!) and the supporting cast were fine. This included the wonderful Estelle Winwood. Could have been better but quite watchable.

a cure for insomnia

[CatTales · 7/10 · 20 January 2003]

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").

Everything's great, except the plot

[bensonmum2 · 5/10 · 30 December 2005]

After her car breaks down, Jane Lindstrom (Glynis Johns) makes her way to the gated home of a man known as Caligari (Dan O'Herlihy). She is invited into the house and, at first, feels comfortable. But when Jane is not allowed to leave the next day, she realizes that, like Caligari's other "guests", she is trapped. Things get even worse when she witnesses Caligari and another man beating an old woman to death. She'll do anything to get out, but how does she ever hope to escape from Caligari's clutches?

This movie might have been a complete dude for me if it weren't for Glynis Johns. For lack of a better word, I'll call her portrayal of Jane Lindstrom "refreshing". She's absolutely atypical of what you would normally expect to find in a movie like this. For the most part, she's meek, mild, mannered, and goes along with what she's told. But when push comes to shove, she's not above abandoning this persona and experimenting with a more brash, sexy personality if it will help her get what she desires. The contrast between the two personalities is fascinating. The rest of the cast is equally enjoyable with O'Herlihy playing the mysterious, cold Caligari perfectly. A group of recognizable character actors, whose names may not be very well known, rounds out the cast.

Don't expect "in your face" horror with The Cabinet of Caligari. It's very subtle. In fact, my rating would be higher but the movie is often too subtle for its own good. There were more than a few instances where I wished something would happen. Too often the plot drags as we see scene after scene of Jane lying around bemoaning her situation. Do something, woman! And while Caligari is a threatening presence, he spends most of his time sitting behind a desk asking seemingly pointless questions. But just when you think things have come to a grinding halt, a scene like the one where Caligari is caught by our heroine spying on her in the bathtub comes along and things pick up for a moment.

Technically, The Cabinet of Caligari is superior to a lot of the other low budget horror of the period. Cinematography and lighting are quite nice. There are some interesting camera shots and lighting choices such as those during Jane's striptease for Caligari. The set design is a real highlight. I was reminded on more than one occasion of the post-modern/deco house in The Black Cat (1934), a real favorite of mine. The house features fabulously designed staircases, corners, and spaces to make most scenes at least look interesting.

Overall, it's too bad the plot couldn't be as interesting, entertaining, or well done as the technical aspects of the film and the acting. Had the plot been better, The Cabinet of Caligari could have been a real winner.

Enjoyable Psychological Thriller Akin to an Episode of Twilight Zone

[RobertCartland · 7/10 · 10 July 2014]

The Cabinet of Caligari is a psychological thriller inspired by the famous German silent film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Aside from the names the two main characters, Jane and Caligari, and the final plot twist, this film has little resemblance with the early predecessor. The writer, Robert Bloch, a prolific author of short stories, novels and screenplays is best known for Psycho, the novel on which the Hitchcock film is based. Unlike the silent film, this is not a horror, but a psychological story akin to an episode of Twilight Zone –one of the better episodes. The acting and directing are first rate and Bloch's story intrigues and surprises even if the ultimate plot twist becomes clear before the final sequence. The opening image, light at the end of a tunnel, and disturbing music are the only clue that things may not be what they appear. An attractive blond, Jane, exits the tunnel and drives freely in her sports car, sans shoes, until she suffers a flat and finds herself, Rocky Horror Picture style, seeking refuge within the estate of the eccentric Caligari. The estate is not a creepy old mansion, but a tasteful, modern home with comfortable accommodations. After a night's rest, Jane meets Caligari's numerous unsettling guests. Unsettling, only because they accept without question or concern that Jane is being kept in the estate against her will. A large locked gate, guards and dogs prevent Jane from leaving. Most of the guests are kind and understanding. A few, including a handsome young love interest, offer to help Jane escape as long as she opens her mind to their cooperation. An elderly woman named Ruth befriends Jane and offers to help her leave, until Jane later discovers Ruth being tortured by the cruel Caligari and his staff. Jane too suffers humiliation and pain at the hand of the sadistic Caligari. She must rely on her own resolve to escape the nightmare, discovering that most things are not what they appear. While not as ground-breaking as the early film with a similar title, The Cabinet of Caligari is an enjoyable psychological thriller.

Confused Mental States?

[easelpainter-1 · 5/10 · 7 May 2005]

NOTE SPOILER: Unlike some readers and viewers on this site I found this version of "The Cabinet of Dr Caligari" intriguing in its use of dialogue, artistically well intentioned, and part of an ever widening and popularizing of clinical psychology at the time the film was made. The lead actors give their all, and rather than being a re-make of the original German expressionist horror film, the film neatly details the delusion and paranoia surrounding one person's experience of breakdown, with its associations of denial, and distortions of the world outside the self. Working against the film is the cheap trick of borrowing the original German title.

Not really a horror

[Milk_Tray_Guy · 6/10 · 9 March 2024]

Despite it's title and loose connection with the German silent horror film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), this is more of a psychological thriller/mystery. The lovely (and sadly recently departed) Glynis Johns plays a woman, Jane, whose car gets a flat tyre and who seeks assistance at a sinister looking mansion (will these people never learn?!). There she meets the owner, a man who goes by the name of Caligari. He offers to have his staff attend her car, fix it if possible, and if it's not possible to put her up for the night. Of course, when the staff attend they find the problem is more than just a flat tyre; there's also a problem with the steering. Initially grateful of the offer to stay the night, Jane becomes worried the next day when Caligari won't let her leave.

Glynis Johns is great as usual, making the most of that wonderfully breathy, husky voice. Co-star Dan O'Herlihy is just as good, and the supporting cast are solid. It's intriguing rather than gripping, and you might guess both twists, but it's an enjoyable ride getting there. 6.5/10.

No remake, but not so bad

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 4/10 · 29 March 2003]

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.

Tell Me! Tell Me! Tell Me!

[Mike-764 · 8/10 · 29 May 2006]

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.

"How do I get out of this maze?"

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 8 March 2024]

About as rum a film as you'd expect to find Glynis Johns (here billed as 'Miss Glynis Johns'). If director Roger Kay didn't have his own Wikipedia page you'd detect the hand of William Castle in this roaring piece of hokum; although Castle would have been rather out of his depth as the film gets raunchier.

From the pen of Robert Bloch, who after he made his name authoring 'Psycho was swiftly in demand to write more psychological thrillers of which this was the first, shares the director of photography and had the effrontery to call itself 'The Cabinet of Caligari; since its resemblance to the original is superficial at best, apart from (SLIGHT SPOILER COMING:) the very ending.

This has plainly cast its net wide as Constance Ford's role strikingly resembles Alida Valli in 'Eyes Without a Face'. It isn't exactly good, but it's certainly memorable; while it's sadism and sex talk are pretty strong meat for the period.

Twilight Zone Episode Gone Wild

[dane-70 · 4/10 · 1 March 2009]

This is truly a dreadful movie. The Twilight Zone served up this sort of thing much more efficiently on a weekly basis at the same time, with production values that were hardly any worse, but infinitely more entertaining. Any of Serling's writers could have compressed this into 25 minutes with no loss whatsoever, and they could have shot it in an afternoon. Glynis Johns, for all she has to work with, could not possibly be less sexy, even by early 60s standards. The only redeeming feature is perhaps the historical interest of exposing how appallingly stupid psychiatric theory was at the time, and for many still is. But lots of other contemporary movies accomplish this in a much more interesting way -- say, David and Lisa, any movie with Anthony Perkins, even all those forgettable movies featuring the absurd psychiatrist with the vaguely cosmopolitan accent, and a perfectly trimmed lip mustache. It's a shame that they used the Caligari name, which is the only thing that keeps this alive.

A Mess

[dougdoepke · 3 March 2014]

No need to recap the plot or what there is of it.

In short, the movie's a mess. The fact that events throughout are being distorted by Jane's (Johns) troubled mind may explain the surreal approach, but doesn't lift the repetitive narrative. I suspect that if one were interested enough, the movie could be analyzed for supposed symbolism. For example, there's the revolving door that appears to revolve Jane in and out of her tormentor's office; or why it is that she's in every scene, staging which does make ultimate sense. But the tricks that are supposed to build suspense (What's going on in this weird place) soon become tiresome once they seem to go nowhere. At the same time, the jarring film score is like lemon on pickle. The arty photography is interesting at times, but fails to lift the repetitive storyline.

Now, I'm as big a fan of Johns as most anyone. Her fish-girl in the charming Miranda (1948) is perfect casting. Here, however, her little girl voice and abject behavior appear to be questionable casting, becoming at times shrill and bothersome. Nonetheless, I suspect getting someone of her movie stature was a coup for lowly Lippert Productions, traditionally a budget outfit, to say the least. Anyway, esteemed writer Bloch misfired on this one. Perhaps he got too subtle with his permutations on reality, but I'll leave that to a midnight study group. For me, the results are more tedious than interesting or even weird.

Film noir curiosity with Glynis Johns

[Maverick1962 · 7/10 · 1 April 2024]

Black & white thriller with a nod to the Classic German Expressionist silent from the 1920's. Jane has a tyre blow out and walks to a very big mansion with electronic gates where she is let in by a mysterious bearded man who can only be described as creepy.

For me, Glynis Johns, who passed away in January 2024 at the age of 100, was one of the most appealing British actresses of the 20th century. With her ultra pretty face, slim figure and soft husky voice, she could charm the birds off the trees as I believe she did in Mary Poppins. Here, playing Jane, she is held captive by the mysterious Caligari played by Robinson Crusoe actor Dan O'Herlihy. Various other characters seem to be held under Caligari's control also and Jane has her time cut out trying to persuade them to help her escape from the mansion. I quickly worked out one of the twists revealed at the end but the big one completely eluded me until it almost ended. I try not to reveal spoilers so I'll leave any plot secrets alone. Filmed in black and white much in a film noir style, this is really worth seeing for the splendid performance by Glynis Johns.

Barely constitutes a horror film

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 5/10 · 7 May 2015]

Suffering a car accident, a woman comes to the home of a strange doctor entertaining guests who are staying at the house, but realizing that she's a prisoner in the house she tries every possible way to get away from the asylum.

This is a dismally dreadful film that has little to like about it. Most of the film's problems result from the fact that it never once feels like a true horror film, for while it has a potentially creepy premise this one stays so low-going and the same way throughout it plays out as a drama. Nothing happens in it, and the fact that it continually uses the cliché of having her try to get out and get caught only for no punishments to be dealt out gets too ridiculous at times and only hastens the plot's completely dull nature. The fact that it takes so long to even do anything is a huge problem, taking a near eternity to even get to the point of the film. It starts off creepy as the continual denials at finding out what's going on, but then after a while it soon becomes aggravating when it refuses to do anything, and it seems as though all it does is simply run through the same lame psychological torments time after time which results in nothing more than aggravation and irritation at keeping the cycle going hoping that the strange behavior of the other inmates is enough to work this out. There's also a big flaw in that she's captured at the beginning, but is given the reasoning behind her imprisonment at the end which in itself is such a lame motive more should've been done with it as this manages to make the others out there even more noticeable. However, there's some good stuff here at times as one of the main ones is that it goes to great lengths to set up a creepy atmosphere. There's a tremendous effort to keep her at the sanitarium, and after awhile these can be somewhat creepy. The fact that not a straight answer is given until late in the film, despite knowing what happens to them at the sanitarium, helps this have a real air of dread to the scenes. The only other factor that works is the twisted ending, which actually has several things going for it. It's the only thing that feels mildly threatening, with the sequence where it feels like a series of photographs on display being especially impressive. It has a great look to it that seems really freaky, and the twist involved with it is a pretty nice surprise. These, though, are all the film has going for it as all of that pales to its complete inability to feel like a horror film.

Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence.

A mind is like a car. When it breaks down, get a good mechanic!

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 30 March 2016]

This is the convoluted psychological thriller melodrama that has seemingly outgoing Glynis Johns hobbling happily down the street searching for help after her car breaks down. She knocks on the wrong door, and ends up being trapped in a beautiful bedroom by the strange title character who keeps a severe eye on her, and his beautiful assistant who also insists that she cannot leave the premises.

Dan O'Herlihy is the titled character, a rather mysterious man who may or may not be a doctor, and what kind he may or may not be takes some patience to find out. The lovely assistant is soap opera favorite Constance Ford, denying that she is Caligari's mistress, but also maintaining innocence in Glynis's his accusations that they are leading a perverted lifestyle and keeping Johns locked up to keep it their secret.

Others present include dizzy Estelle Winwood, her aging boyfriend J. Pat O'Malley and a handsome young man, Richard Davalos who expresses a romantic interest in Johns. she uses her wits to determine why she is being held against her will, and ends up in some precarious predicament that are dreamlike and quite intense. It becomes pretty obvious what actually is going on about halfway through the film, but I'll give that to you to discover. Obviously influenced by the similarly-named silent film, this is not as artistically brilliant but has some great moments.

John gives an excellent performance and is matched by O'Herlihy and Ford. the issue with the film is that it seems to take itself way too seriously, and like other psychological melodramas of the time, is trying too hard to emulate classic mental illness films like the snake pit. However, it is certainly better than "The Caretakers" which dealt with life inside a mental institution and came out the following year. Disturbing and convoluted, this is a perfect example of the 60's artistic flop and a good example why the new eave style of films worked better with European filmmakers.

Not frightening!

[JohnHowardReid · 5/10 · 11 July 2017]

Suggested by the 1919 German film, "Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari", by Robert Weine. Sound recording: Jack Solomon. Westrex Sound System. Executive producer: Robert L. Lippert. A Robert L. Lippert Production. Filmed at the Samuel Goldwyn Studios, Hollywood.

Copyright 23 May 1962 by Associated Producers, Inc. Released through 20th Century-Fox. New York opening simultaneously at the Victoria and the 68th Street Playhouse: 26 May 1962. U.S. release: 26 May 1962. U.K. release: 2 September 1962. Sydney opening at the Regent (yes, the prestigious Regent). 9,467 feet. 105 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Young woman is held prisoner in a weird mansion.

COMMENT: This attempt to cash in on the huge commercial success of "Psycho" (same author, same photographer) is only mildly successful at best. Perhaps in the hands of a more distinguished cast (say Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier), viewer interest may well have been heightened.

As it is, the movie unfurls at what seems a pretty slow 106 minutes. Not very frightening either, as most of these terror effects are telegraphed well ahead. The direction too is mostly humdrum, though effective use is occasionally made of the wide CinemaScope screen.

Wish we could help cure mental illness as easy as this!

[makantor-1 · 8/10 · 1 February 2007]

I had originally seen this movie at the age of fifteen; it continues to make a deep impression upon me. Though the plot does seem to move rather slowly by today's standards, it remains an amazing story of a young girl who has decided to come into touch with herself. Jane's validity depends upon her own understanding of reality versus fantasy. I am fortunate to have explored, through the DVD, the pleasures and horrors, as she leads the path that ultimately forces her to confront her inner fears. This "remake" may go beyond the original, but still exemplifies the importance of the caring and needs that we need to provide to our own. We are their caregivers. I was especially impressed by Constance Ford's role.

Attention, film score lovers: Don't miss this one!

[joelbklyn · 8/10 · 11 January 2005]

I was an impressionable 17-year-old back in 1962 when CALIGARI shocked the living daylights out of me. And to this day -- though, naturally, to a far lesser (suspenseful) degree (and despite some of its obvious flaws) -- I can still sit through a performance of this haunting film in nearly rapt attention.

The main reasons for this are twofold: (1) The ever present youth in me can be easily summoned, so that contextually I am back in the early '60s, eager to reimmerse myself in the intensity of the dark psychodrama about to be played out, and blithely unencumbered by the need for (or expectation of) today's technologically superior special effects; and (2) Gerald Fried's ubiquitous, compelling film score music (especially the bittersweet main theme, played repeatedly in a multitude of beguiling variations) adds an immeasurable degree of enjoyment to this sadly underrated film.

Fortunately, the commercial-free Fox Movie Channel has featured THE CABINET OF CALIGARI, which has been, for the most part, unavailable for purchase by the general public.

Try to avoid spoilers

[adriangr · 8/10 · 29 July 2019]

This is one strange movie. It's been unavailable for a very long time and residing in something of a limbo until this welcome DVD release at an equally welcome low price. Basically, "The Cabinet of Caligari" has nothing to do with the famous 1919 silent movie expect for re-using the title, but is based on a thriller story written by the legendary Robert Bloch. It's hard to know how to describe this film, but comparing it to an extended episode of the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits would be a good start - it has exactly the same stagy TV-like appearance, over wordy and deliberately obtuse script, and earnest (if rather hammy) performances.

The film starts with the heroine Jane (Glynis Johns) speeding blissfully along in a sports car, before coming to an unexpected halt due to a flat tyre. The motives or origins of this car journey are never explained, but don't worry, this is just the beginning of the disorientation that the movie is going to throw at you. Seeking help at a large house, Jane is welcomed inside and meets a handful of strange characters, all of whom appear helpful and pleasant. However, time passes and Jane begins to realise that she is being dissuaded from leaving, in fact she soon finds that it is actually impossible to leave the house and grounds. Presiding over the estate is a mysterious figure known as Caligari, who (with a hilarious hybrid accent) questions and confuses Jane, and generally menaces her in various ways. Jane begins to get more and more afraid as days go by, before losing control completely as the film's several shock twists start to kick in.

What to make of it all....? In a way, the film fails on a lot of levels due to the lack of realism of Jane's predicament. The casting of Glynis Johns as Jane works for me, as she has a very appealing vulnerability, but the script she is given really lets the character down. Jane never explains or expounds upon her feelings in the situation she is in, and therefore, some very obvious questions such as "Who are you all?" and "Why are you keeping me here?" never get asked or answered! Most of the time I was screaming at Jane to just confront her captors and demand some kind of explanation, but she simple drifts around the house engaging in rhetorical conversational ping-pong with the other "guests", with nearly everybody speaking in cryptic riddles like some low budget re-hash of "Last Year at Marienbad". But a lot of the situations she finds herself in are pretty odd, and there is a surreal quality about all the proceedings that works quite well, with some very unconventional filmic techniques thrown in at important moments. Although I couldn't shake the sense that Jane really wasn't trying that hard to get out of the place which did blow the mood somewhat.

However, having said all this, the final few minutes of the film contain the big twist that goes a long was to explain this very odd state of affairs...something which I cannot spoil for you here. I really regret that so many reviews of this film have given away the ending, as it must have been a very odd experience to watch it with no idea of the explanation...sadly I knew the ending in advance as well. But it does make for a worthwhile second run through of the whole film - if you can face another 100 mins of rambling nonsense and slightly whacky psychedelic effects - to see it in the light of what you learn at the end. The film is in black and white Cinemascope and looks gorgeous in full widescreen. The sets and imagery are pretty basic, but the cinematographer does what he can with selective lighting and weird angles.

To sum up, the film works best for fans of the two TV shows mentioned above. It's clever, but nowhere near as important as it thinks it is. I have to say though, that the DVD cover is a total knockout. You also get a full screen version to watch (don't - it ruins it) and a clunky trailer. Not bad for the price. A collector's curio.

very simple idea is admirably sustained

[christopher-underwood · 8/10 · 25 September 2007]

Something just that little bit different here and something really rather good. The slightly odd or seeming unlikely happenings, including the casting of Glynis Johns all make sense by the end, at least as far as I am concerned. Great sets help create a 'modern' but nevertheless creepy feel and Gerald Fried's score is most effective. A very simple idea is admirably sustained and every now and then when we feel things cannot go on like this for much longer we are jolted, either by the outrageousness of Caligari or by the sudden appearance of another guest. I had never even heard of this film before the appearance of the DVD and wonder if indeed it ever opened in the UK. The sexual references and physical violence certainly surprised me for a film of the early 60's. Well worth seeing.

From the inside looking out

[kirksworks · 8/10 · 12 January 2011]

Here is a film that much improves on a second viewing. The first viewing, unfortunately, may turn a lot of people off because of its moderate pace and what comes across as bad writing and bad dialog. But give it a try... or two tries. All that seeming badness is there for a reason.

This is the story of Jane, a woman on 'vacation', whose car has a flat. She gets out and walks, ending up at the house of a very powerful and apparently evil man, Caligari, who keeps her captive. Others she meets at the place come across as characters from the Twilight Zone. In fact, everything about this place and its characters, plus the way they interact with Jane, is very off. Characters seem to appear for no reason and sometimes deliver dialog that is purposely over the top and even wildly campy.

The plot focuses on Jane's relationship with Caligari, who appears to be some whacked out psychotherapist, and her attempts to escape his psychological as well as real hold on her. Other people at this house try to help her escape... or do they? By the end of the film, though some may see it coming a mile away, everything is put into focus. I wanted to re-watch the film right away, but decided to give it some breathing room. When I finally did re-watch, I was amazed at how much more interesting it was, knowing what I knew from the first viewing.

*** SPOILERS NEXT PARAGRAPH:

Of course what we learn is that we have been viewing the world through the mind of a mentally deranged woman. Once we see that, as we watch the film the second time, we can see that all the weirdness, bad dialog and bizarre character behavior was really Jane's mind playing tricks on her. The tricks reveal what a state of denial Jane is in about her fear of aging and losing her beauty. I'm sure many women have problems facing this aspect of their lives. The visuals of the film and concepts like a revolving door to enter Caligari's office, the twisted stairwell, the stark lighting, and effective use of still images, all contribute to creating a very uneasy state of mind. When I first watched, some scenes truly creeped me out, though they made me laugh at the same time. On second viewing, they still creeped me out, but the laughter was gone. The major flaw in the script is that following a major mental trauma Jane is considered "cured" and well enough to leave what we find out is not Caligari's 'home', but a mental institution.

*** END SPOILERS

This movie is certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's an imaginative remake of the 1919 expressionist "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," minus the somnambulist and the bizarre sets. Yet the remake's visuals hearken back to the design of the original. The twisted stairwell, an amazing hallway dream sequence that could have been right out of the 1919 film, the psychologically conceived sets and often artificial lighting really recreate the mood of the old film.

Glynis Johns is quite effective as Jane. She plays her right on the edge. Her conversations with Caligari (Dan O'Herlihy) are laughably disturbing. Often Jane's shock of what she sees is our shock as well. I know many find this film just plain terrible, but I think it has many surprises if you give it a chance (or two!).

Gerald Fried's inventive score fleshes out Jane's state of mind beautifully. "Caligari" may have been pitched as a horror film, but it's not. If you go into it thinking it's a fright film, you'll be disappointed. As a voyage into the depths of insanity, though, it has a lot going for it. Just like Jane, who enters a house expecting one thing only to find something very different, you need to know what you're getting yourself into before watching!

A psychological thriller that ends flat.

[oscar-35 · 13 July 2014]

*Spoiler/plot- Cabinet of Caligari, 1962. A young lady's car breaks down and she has to walk to get help to the nearest walled home. Once invited in, she discovers the house is run by a strange bearded man who is very controlling of her and asks very direct embarrassing challenging questions. This makes her so uncomfortable and she tries to enlist the help of the other house guests and house staff to escape with success. She later tries to seduce the bearded man which brings on an epiphany in her attitude and we find out the real truth of her. She was an older woman who had let her mental illness color her perceptions of the whole situation. She is cured and goes back to reality.

*Special Stars- Glynis Johns, Dan O'Herlihy, Lawrence Dobkin, J. Pat O'Malley, Estelle Winwood, Costance Ford.

*Theme- The human mind is a magical thing.

*Trivia/location/goofs- B & W. English. Dan O'Herlihy plays a double role; good and bad. Script written by the same screenwriter as Hitchcock's "Psycho". Body double used for Ms Johns nude seduction scene. Although several horror/suspense movies (most notably Psycho) were advertised with the warning that patrons would not be seated after film began or during climactic final minutes, ads for this one included the unenforceable caveat that no one would be allowed to leave the theater during the last 13 minutes (the ending).

*Emotion- A psychological thriller in the mold of 'Psyco'. I very good impressionistic film that grabs the viewer with suspense, unfortunately the ending is doing deliver as much creativity as the set-up did in the film's beginning.

*Based on- Psychological theories of mental illness.