Review of Cul-de-sac (1966) by Timothy M — 23 Sep 2010

Sandwiched between two of the 1960's greatest shockers Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, I reasonably held high hopes that Cul-de-Sac would provide many unsettling moments. To my surprise, this turned out to be a very different animal.

The premise is perfect fodder for Polanski: two thugs are stranded at a remote seaside estate and hold the resident husband & wife hostage until they can reunite with their gang. However, in this instance the director chose to explore the comedic aspects of the situation! There are more laughs than chills to be found here. Only infrequently do we feel real danger in this situation - lead thug Lionel Stander presents a menacing air, but he is more oafish than threatening. He doesn't even present a gun until halfway through, yet meek Donald Pleasance capitulates to his orders almost immediately. The arrival of unexpected guests only results in more hijinks, particularly involving the bratty son, instead of tension.

Just because I expected one kind of movie and got another should not affect my rating. The question is, how good are the results onscreen? Well, the peculiar tone of Cul-de-Sac makes it difficult to judge. I found it passably entertaining, not funny enough to succeed as an outright comedy and certainly not gripping enough to qualify as a thriller. I am left puzzled wondering exactly WHAT Mr. Polanski was aiming for. Perhaps the same kind of scary comedy he would perfect with his next film, The Fearless Vampire Killers? If that's the case, this mixed experiment was well worth the ultimate payoff.