MovieChat Forums > Wait Until Dark (1967) Discussion > Considering that it was made in 1967.......

Considering that it was made in 1967......

posted 14 years ago by once_again
8 replies | jump to latest

I guess it was good...then. I've seen it a couple of time many years ago.

Watching it again today, I found it laughable in many ways. The "bad guys" going in and out of the apartment so many times, making calls..etc. was so ridiculous and more like a joke compared to plots from movies made in later years. Audrey Hepburns gasps and "oh, noooooooo" when she realized what was happening, was very over-the-top. Not good acting at all. Then there's Suzy finding out that a woman was murdered and dumped close by, and Mike tells her about people looking for the doll, she doesn't lock her door. People just come and go..
This movie would not make it today. More of a bad comedy than a thriller.

[–] Excaliburan 14 years ago

Times were different back then in 1967. People left their doors unlocked and didn't have a reason not to distrust their neighbors. Some people still do that, mostly in "safe" cooker-cutter neighborhoods. However, I just thought the door bit was a little sketchy.

I know that Susy was blind and often had people like Gloria coming over to do errands for her, so why lock the apartment door? She didn't need to be going up and down the stairs to let Gloria in. However, once she learned about the murder or felt unsafe, Susy could have made it a rule to lock doors.

Susy did lock the door once. She destroyed all of the lights except for one and sat down in the rocking chair with her cane. Crenna's character, Mike, unhinged the door with some plastic and helped himself in.

Perry: "You, stop multiplying!"

[–] skiop 14 years ago

If you think this is a comedy, you're really a sadistic little thing.

You're right, it wouldn't be made today. Susie would be 16 years old and be seen with nothing but a bra and panties at least once (nothing more, as they need to get the PG-13 rating), there would have to be a shirtless hottie with a waxed chest in at least one scene, and an MTV soundtrack would be a must.

I thought it was quite remarkable, especially the ending, where Susie takes the upper hand, by forcing a confrontation in the dark, a medium that she's used to but Roat wasn't.

[–] HoneyBakedHam 14 years ago

Not good acting at all....get real, Hepburn was brilliant, and was nominated for an AA. You do realise shes blind and still learning about being blind right?
Plots from movies made from later years were more of a joke compared to this, its aged well, and is still remembered today as a great performance.
Your wishy washy argument doesnt really make any points tbh...

[–] hka-3 14 years ago

You do realise shes blind and still learning about being blind right?

Exactly. People handle new challenges differently. As it was, Susy didn't know yet if she could handle things on her own, then to top it off she had to deal with crooks and a killer. I feel for anyone who has to learn to deal with blindness while also having to fend for their lives.

[–] learmoak 13 years ago

This particular movie has held up better than modern movies...which in many cases are trash.

[–] shepardjessica-1 10 years ago

It was a different world back then. Audrey should have won another Oscar for this film, even though it's only a thriller.

[–] theblackestmagic 10 years ago

It really shouldn't have mattered what genre of film it was, Audrey Hepburn gave a remarkable performance in this movie and could easily have been awarded the best actress oscar for that year.

[–] liscarkat (18429) 3 years ago

"Considering that it was made in 1967...."

Because decent movies only started being made in recent decades. The tragedy of all that film being wasted before Spielberg came along and movies finally got good.