Reviews

Sus does not work as a film. Its pretty faithful to the play its based on - it should be as the screenplay is by Barrie Keefe who also wrote the play. However no adjustment has been made to accommodate for a film audience.

Because of this watching Sus is like watching a play, which would be great if you are sitting in a theatre.

The performances by Ralph Brown, Clint Dyer and Rafe Spall are totally solid and stand up, even allowing for the fact the script has dated badly since it was written in 1979.

But it just doesn't work as a film. It reminded me of the Plays For Today that used to be on BBC in the 1970's which were exactly that, filmed plays.

I wonder just who the film-makers thought they were making this for? There is nothing wrong with filming plays if the film-makers allow for the differences between the two mediums which this production does not.

I watched this,last night and to be honest I was genuinely surprised at just how bad it is.

What is a promising idea is ruined by lack of budget. The monster is laughable, blatantly someone wearing a catsuit with a rubber mask on.

The script itself is shocking. Segments appear to have little relevance to what is going on and merely there to drag out the running time to feature length. The butlers dislike of the Hawk is never explained, other than the brief mention the start of the hawksmoth, which is then never referred again. Yes, I know he has a scar on his face, obviously from some encounter but what has this to do with the plot? At one point a Policeman asks Peter Cushing who he thinks is responsible for the murders. To which Cushing replies not who but what and starts talking about gigantic vampire moths. To which the Policeman nodds sagely like this is an everyday occurrence in Victorian London.

The young leads/love interest are probably the two most annoying examples of this type of genre, just because they are so dull, and like the Policeman seen to regard gigantic vampire moths as nothing out of the ordinary.

Peter Cushing described this as his worse film. He's right.

There are disturbing elements to the film. Mainly, that the gang kill and rape indiscriminately, just because they can and depending on their mood at the time. Which makes this film slightly uncomfortable as it is based on a true story. Although how much of the film is true I'm not sure. But the film does come across as a cross between Bonnie & Clyde and the first half of A Clockwork Orange.

I watched this film, for probably the same reason that most people watch it today. Because it contains an early performance by De Niro. And although he is the best thing in it, that isn't saying much. He doesn't really give any indication of the big star or acting guru he was only a few years away from becoming.

But that isn't really his fault. What lets this film down the most is not the acting, but the script. None of the characters are developed at any point to become interesting, or for you to care what does or does not happen to them.

Nor do we have any empathy for most of the victims. One is so particularly stupid I found myself wanting them to get their sticky end. The army of G-Men chasing them are not developed, so there is no antagonist for the gang. The gang themselves get on pretty well with each other so there's no drama there.

This film really was a wasted opportunity and by the end of it you really couldn't care less.