The Nanny (1965)

Admirable film.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

A 10 year old boy is being sent home from an institution after two years. It seems when he was 8 his younger sister drowned in the bath tub. He blames their nanny (Bette Davis). She blames him. After two years they believe he's cured. Back home he hates the nanny and makes sure she knows it. She treats him with respect. We slowly find out what happened back then.An unknown Hammer horror movie. It is slow-moving and I saw the ending coming from a mile away but I was never bored. There are quite a few chilling moments especially at the end. It's shot in moody black and white and well-directed by Seth Holt (who HATED working with Davis). All the acting is great--especially by Davis. For once she nicely underplays the role and is very effective. She's superb at the end. A pretty unknown Hammer thriller that's well worth seeing.

There is just something not quite right when Bette Davis stars as an English nanny. And is her 10 year-old charge (William Dix) an emotionally disturbed murderer or just an insolent brat? When it comes to Hammer, I am not terribly familiar with director Seth Holt. Aside from "Blood From the Mummy's Tomb" (1971), he seemed to steer clear of the horror stuff. Even "Nanny" is not horror in the truest sense, leaning more towards suspense or thriller territory.Whereas Holt is not well known to me, writer-producer Jimmy Sangster is something of a legend. Dracula? Frankenstein? Mummy? "The Snorkel"? All Sangster. And he does not disappoint us here, presently a complex psychological tale where each and every character seems to have something wrong with them.The real gem of the picture? Not Bette Davis (who does alright, but I have personally never cared for her). Of course, it would be Pamela Franklin. Probably best known for "Legend of Hell House", she shines here as the teenage neighbor who may be up to no good... though nothing more than harmless trouble. I could watch anything with Franklin in it, which makes it all the more unfortunate that she has not acted in over thirty years.Definitely a better than average film, and a great Hammer film -- even without mad scientists or vampires! (As far as 1965 goes, however, I did prefer "A Study in Terror". But two good films again this month!)

Little Joey Fane (Dix) is released from some kind of Home For Disturbed Children, although the staff believe they've failed to refurbish him constructively. Boy, is that kid a pain.He's about ten years old, dominates his weekly mother (the ski-slope nosed Craig), hates his forbearing nanny (Davis) and makes constant irrational demands. He won't eat anything nanny cooks for him, although he steals scraps from his Dad's plate. He makes nanny swear that she will never enter while he is bathing. She takes the oath with an indulgent smile. He plays mean tricks on her. We don't know why because the nanny has been a loyal member of the household since Joey's Mom was a child. He's not a cute kid, either. He's dish faced and seems to look up from under his brows, always with a scowl of suspicion.He explains what he thinks is going on in the household to his new upstairs neighbor (Franklin). This is the best idea he's had so far, because Pamela Franklin, although only fourteen, is pert, cute, and sexy -- and she knows it too. At any rate, Joey tells Franklin that nanny drowned his little sister and is trying to poison him and his mother. Flashbacks illustrate the narrative he carries around in his head and some of the historical reality as well.I won't spoil the rolling revelations but they're not exactly what one might expect. This movie, and several others like it, followed the success of "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" But this is more grounded in reality. There are no grotesqueries in the make ups or acting. Violence is minimal. Nobody is kept prisoner, so there are no suspenseful scenes of outside intruders trying unsuccessfully to rescue anyone -- vide "Gaslight," "Lady in a Cage," inter alia.The characters may seem to be a bit overdrawn and stereotyped -- no-nonsense Dad, enfeebled Mom, indulgent nanny, nasty child, an Auntie who has a weak heart and whose destiny we can fathom at once. But there's no problem with the acting. The cast is quite good, even the little brat who should be stomped like a cockroach. Betty Davis is a problem though. Here eyebrows have been darkened and her hair done in close curls so she seems to be more of a mannequin than a human being. Also, she's a fine actress but, like Burt Lancaster, really ought to avoid any roles that call for an accent.It's no masterpiece of film making -- the plot is lumbering and slow -- but it could have been much less subtle than it is.

IMDb 7.2/10 ROTTENTOMATOES 3.7/5 A boy wants his nanny out of his life.I think this film is widely overrated.Most of the performances are mediocre, except for Bette Davis and the little girl (she performs for just a minute). Still, the story manages to keep you slightly interested due to a well built tension every now and then and some disturbing moments. Unfortunately, the end is really weak and disappointing.Funny thing is that even if Bette Davis carries pretty well the weight of the film and that she's on the screen a big deal of time, I had the feeling her character was not well developed.I was disappointed by the film: I was expecting much more given the good reviews on the site.