SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

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

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

THE MAN IN BLACK is an early mystery thriller effort from Hammer Films that feels like a variant on the 'old dark house' theme. It's worth a look thanks to a winning performance from Sid James, long before he became typecast in the horror genre. James plays a wealthy but ailing figure whose wife and stepdaughter seem to be constantly plotting against in order to get their hands on his fortune. He dies during a spooky seance so the focus of their attention falls on his fragile daughter. This low budget film is packed with twists and turns, the most crucial of which is rather obvious for any fan of British cinema. The cast is excellent though and features superbly poisonous turns from Betty Ann Davies and Sheila Burrell alongside plenty of creepy incident.

Although on IMDb this is tagged as a horror movie as well as a thriller - it is not a horror film. It's a thriller, very film noir(ish). The seance might be the only real impression this a horror film. Sure there is a man speaking in a "spooky voice" in the beginning of it, a man simulating his own death through yoga, a woman seemingly going insane, ugly step-mom and step-sister trying to drive her mad but the film is a thriller... maybe with some over/under tones of horror.I will have to agree this movie is similar to Gaslight (1944) It's sorta a rehash of it but with the mystery removed. Gaslight the better film but this one isn't all that bad.This film helped Hammer to pave it's way into the horror genre and is worth a watch but not a film to go out of your way to find.5/10

Basically this film is a rehash of Gasslight,with a will making conditions right for a plot to send the daughter mad.Why a father would want to put such a condition in a will is rather unclear.in fact much of this film is hazy and unclear.It is always clear that Sid James is playing 2 characters.However one has to assume that he is in league with the doctor who pronounces him dead at the séance.Far too much of this film,for budgetary reasons takes place off screen.Sometimes it is extremely confusing so too often events are referred to rather than witnessed Also the second wife and her daughter are really no more than caricatures.Hammer and Sid James would both get much better.

Before Hammer Films branched out into horror they produced a number of suspense dramas that might generously be characterised as film noir. Their other line of content consisted of adaptions of BBC radio and television concepts (Dick Barton, PC 49 and later, to notable effect, the Quatermass serials.) Man in Black was based on a popular radio series called Appointment With Fear hosted by the sepulchral voiced Valentine Dyall, who also provides an on screen introduction to this film. Dyall had a long career as a character actor in the villainous mould and would play the Black Guardian in Doctor Who towards the end of his life.The other notable player in Man in Black is Sid James in one of his earliest film roles, long before his acclaimed comedic parts opposite Tony Hancock and as part of the Carry On ensemble. Here he plays a serious and quite sober role with conviction.The film itself is a mild diversion at best, using the old trope of "trying to drive the young heiress insane." The film lacks mushc in the way of surprises but the key villain/s are well played and genuinely amoral in their approach.Vernon Sewell does not add much dramatic frisson to the tale but everything proceeds at a reasonable pace through the 74 minute film. I was happy to view this relic from Hammer's very early days.