Shock Corridor (1963)

Expected more

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.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Am I the only person who wonders why there are never any attendants around when all the unpleasantries take place? John being attacked by the women (after going through a door that's unlocked when he goes through, but locked when he tries to escape), the race riot in the hall, etc. Even in 1963, so many patients would not be left completely alone at any time, let alone most of the time as seems to be the case in this movie.

Bent on winning a Pulitzer Prize, a journalist commits himself to a mental institution to solve a strange and unclear murder.I knew nothing of this film going in, and really had little idea of who Sam Fuller was. I saw "Pickup on South Street", but that by no means prepared me for this masterpiece. Anyone who wants to see life in the early 1960s, this is the film to see, because it tells it real and it tells it raw.The plot and characters have all the hallmarks of exploitation, and yet this was a mainstream film. Maybe it had no big actors and maybe it won few awards, but it should have. This film is a treasure, and one of the all-time greatest American movies ever made for its story alone.

'Shock Corridor' is pulp master Samuel Fuller at his best form. Like usually in Fuller's better films, 'Shock Corridor' is much more than it looks on the surface. 'Shock Corridor' tells a story about obsessed journalist Johnny Barret (Peter Breck) who, with the help of his girlfriend (Constance Towers) convinces authorities that he's insane and is locked into mental institution to investigate still unsolved murder that took place inside the hospital. This dream (or more like nightmare) like psychological thriller is filled with tense moments mixed with nice surreal scenes, and big portions of irony - Barret is so obsessed in his work that he starts to lose grip with reality. The whole cast does superb job starting with Peter Breck and finishing with chilling performance of Hari Rhodes as black 'white supremacist'.

I find the subject of insane asylums and mental hospitals fascinating. During the 1960s, my mother was hospitalized many times for severe anxiety. At one time she was in a state hospital and received weeks of shock therapy. With that said, here is my opinion of the film. Fuller worked on an extremely small budget and under pressure not to go over the budget. I believe the movie worked, because it was obvious he spent much of his time working with his actors, ensuring their characters were as real as possible. The intensity of the film gave way to an energetic tension. The acting was marvelous, except for one actress: Constance Towers: her acting was embarrassingly melodramatic. The scene where she sang and performed was too long. The extra time could have been used in the hospital scenes. I found the characters believable, but not much of the situation. Some of the patients were calm, others very excitable, and others prone to violence. The film did show patients receiving medication, but not enough to keep them calm. Where were the attendants when needed. Would they really allow the patients to interact without supervision?? Why no intercom system? And the nymphos allowed to attack a man severely? Why weren't they being watched? Do nymphos really act that way? I doubt it!Suffice to say, it is definitely worth watching