Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Cortechba Overrated

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Pedro 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.

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre 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.

CatTales 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").

Paul Curtis 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!"