5/10
Questionable Story, But Good Acting
6 July 2003
The problem with this film is its dubious story. The villain, Roat, conceives a plan that requires that he change his disguise, and further requires that he manipulate two other people. I can see how a psychopath might be intelligent and clever. What defies belief is how someone preoccupied with drugs could be so inventive, so creative, so quick-witted, and so resourceful. Had the object of his attention been something other than drugs, a valuable gem for example, the premise might have had more credibility.

To further the plot along, Roat's complex scheme requires an intelligent victim. And thus, Susy Hendrix, although blind, is super alert, quick-witted, and resourceful. Helping Susy is Gloria, the glasses-wearing, precocious teen.

Indeed, "Wait Until Dark" gushes with smart characters who know exactly what to say and do, at exactly the right moment. The result is a story that comes across as affected and artificial, a conclusion further supported by the film's implausible ending.

If the story is weak, the acting is not. Alan Arkin is terrific as the villain. Both Crenna and Weston give credible performances. And who could criticize the demure and likable Audrey Hepburn? Not me.

This movie does belong in the "thriller" genre. But its suspense is diluted somewhat by a too talky script, the result perhaps of its origin as a play.

Overall, "Wait Until Dark" is a good movie to watch once, mainly for the acting achievements of Arkin and Hepburn.
19 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed