User reviews

After their car becomes stuck on a causeway, two gangsters named Dickey and Albie find themselves stranded on the remote island of Lindisfarne. There, they take refuge in a castle owned by an eccentric couple, the mentally unbalanced George and his promiscuous and beautiful wife Teresa. The hoods proceed to hold George and Teresa hostage, until their boss Katelbach can send them some transportation off the rock. However, matters become complicated by the arrival of a group of George's friends, one of whom Teresa has an affair with. So begins 'Cul-de-sac,' a tale of madness, sexual frustration and pitch-black comedy that could only have come from the mind of Roman Polanski.

Original, abstract and frequently funny, Polanski's 'Cul-de-sac' is a fascinating, captivating movie that will delight any fan of the dark and strange. Much like his earlier 'Repulsion,' the film launches the viewer into a weird world populated by odd folk struggling with their desires and how to interact with the people around them. The characters engage in a power struggle throughout the film, with manipulation and thuggery being the prime weapons at their disposal. While the hoodlums take George and Teresa hostage, it is also Teresa who makes George a hostage of her lust, and it is she who does the most damage to his psyche.

It is a film that will likely spark differing opinions as to what the meaning of it all is. Some cinema-goers enjoy the guesswork, though others find abstractions infuriating; and 'Cul-de-sac' is not for the impatient or the shunners of philosophy. It's an intriguing, dark thriller that also happens to be one of Polanski's funniest outings, as he injects the narrative with much off-beat humor and sharp, banterous dialogue. The film still features his trademark examinations of paranoia, isolation and social unease; though told in a slightly lighter fashion than one accustomed to Polanski would expect (which, for this viewer anyway, comes as a boon to the proceedings).

'Cul-de-sac' is a visually enthralling flick, featuring arresting cinematography from Gilbert Taylor, who lent his talents to the previous 'Repulsion,' and would go on to work with Polanski once more on 'MacBeth.' Their collaborations made for undeniably artistic and powerful visuals that intrigue and impress, both in creative and technical terms. 'Cul-de-sac' boasts some incredible cinematography, from intense tracking shots to the masterful manipulation of light and shadows; Taylor's distinct and evocative work under Polanski's firm direction is unforgettable.

Alastair McIntyre was a frequent collaborator of Polanski's, and his editing for 'Cul-de-sac' is swift and smart. Reportedly, the two men toiled very closely together in the editing suite, developing over the years an intuitive and fruitful working relationship build on mutual respect and admiration. Looking at the remarkably tight, streamlined final cut of 'Cul-de-sac;' it's easy to see why Polanski utilized McIntyre on six films- his work is nigh on flawless.

Also of note is the score from Krzysztof Komeda, which is jazzy and strangely haunting; like elevator music from Dante's second circle of hell. His melodies fit perfectly the images of the film, as odd and as unsettling as some of them may be. Additionally, Bridget Sellers' rich costume design and George Lack's detailed set decoration and art direction lends the film additional impact and depth to the locales and characters.

'Cul-de-sac' stars Donald Pleasence as George, Françoise Dorléac as Teresa and Lionel Stander as Dickey, with the three of them turning in strong performances that are highlights in each of their filmographies. Pleasence is terrific as the unhinged, deeply neurotic George, imbuing him with an almost childlike quality which makes the character all the more interesting and odd. Though sometimes in films Pleasence had a tendency to go a little over-the-top, here he remains grounded, despite the weirdness of the role; doing consummate work that is hard to forget.

Dorléac- who tragically died before making it as big internationally as her sister Catherine Deneuve- is nothing short of a sensation as Teresa, giving a performance of wit, intelligence and depth that is a real treat to watch. As wily and as seductive as a panther in the night, Dorléac is not afraid to make Teresa unlikable, though she remains charismatic throughout. From her all too short career in film, Dorléac's assured performance in 'Cul-de-sac' is her greatest and most compelling.

Finally, Lionel Stander is brilliant as Dickey, the humorous hoodlum who takes hostage and tries to manipulate George and Teresa. Stander was a talented actor whose screen presence- like Ernest Borgnine- was such that you'd warm to him no matter what he did, evil or nay. With his crooked grin and gravelly voice, he leaves an indelible impression on the viewer; making Dickey a character that is most memorable. The supporting cast all perform admirably too, with a young Jacqueline Bisset and Jack MacGowran impressing the most.

Roman Polanski's 'Cul-de-sac' is a powerful and off-beat thriller that has a lot to offer viewers. Featuring an atmospheric Krzysztof Komeda score, stunning visuals from Gilbert Taylor and a cast performing at the top of their games; there is very little not to praise about the movie. If you enjoy films of abstractions and you have not seen it before, it is advisable that you do so now; as 'Cul-de-sac' is a weird, wild and wonderful movie that is not to be missed.

This film is incredible. Polanski's best film behind Knife in the Water and Rosemary's Baby.

The plot revolves around a gangster (Lionel Stander) and his partner that seek refuge in a castle on a small island in England. The couple that inhabit the castle are played by the sublime Donald Pleasance and the beautiful Françoise Dorléac. The movie plays out like a three way triangle of hatred; we have the contempt between the couple and the gangster, who is invading their home; the gangster's mean streak is inflicted on the couple and the lady obviously holds her husband in low regard when he takes on the role of a wimp in front of the gun toting criminal. However, it is not as simple as that as in several points in the movie, the characters let their guard down and start to communicate with each other in an almost friendly way. This is the real beauty of this film; it is a character study, studying the relationship between a couple and a third party in their home. Three is a crowd, and the effects of that true to life phrase are felt by each of the three characters.

The three main players in Cul-De-Sac are fantastic, Lional Stander in particular who was surely born to play his role in this movie. He has the voice and the persona of a not very bright gangster spot on; his comic timing for some of his more obviously funny lines is also noteworthy. Donald Pleasance has never been better than he was here either; his portrayal as the 'lord of the manor' is both believable and intriguing. Last but not least, Françoise Dorléac, in undoubtedly the most overlooked role in the piece, although no less important than the other two, is also on time and believable in her role; making up a perfect cast.

From a relatively simple plot line and few characters, through excellent dialogue, restrained plotting and interesting scenarios, Roman Polanksi has managed to weave a story that is interesting and entertaining. Roman Polanski has a great flair for human relationships in his movies, the best example of this was in his best movie, Knife in the Water, and that element is abundant here too. The scenes in which all three characters are on screen interacting with each other are this movie's finest moments.

Cul-De-Sac is an excellent black comedy thriller that fans of the genre and fans of the excellent Roman Polanski will not want to miss. Recommended viewing

A wounded criminal and his dying partner take up refuge at a beachfront villa, which (not surprisingly) makes the owners less than thrilled.

I watched this as part of my quest to see all of Polanski's films in order. After two psychological films, he has switched to comedy... and I am not entirely sure I get it. Visually, this film is quite stunning and it has some good camera work (including one of the longest continuous sequences in cinematic history at the time of release at 7 minutes and 28 seconds).

Jack Nicholson claimed in an interview in 2007 that this is his favorite film. Not sure what to make of that. I loved Donald Pleasance as the cross-dressing wimp, but beyond that, I just do not think I really got it... the humor was not so strong and the darkness was not all that dark.

Two gangsters on the run hide out in a isolated castle that is occupied by Plesance and Dorleac. The two share a rather bizarre passive, aggressive relationship that quickly disintegrates when interrupted by the strangers. Eventually a even more bizarre bonding develops between the couple and Stander, one of the gangsters. Very, very intriguing psychological drama with wonderfully subversive elements lurking just beneath the surface.

Polanski makes full use of the castle showing it's dark, shadowy interior as a sort of symbolic equation to the dark recesses of the human mind. The characters all have their odd traits yet are still believable and compelling to watch. Wonderfully photographed with a strong visual style that really gives this film a distinct look and personality.

Stander, who is probably best known as Max on the old HART TO HART series, has one of his finest roles. He plays a brute that mixes both savage and human traits all at the same time. Plesance though is astounding, playing a truly pathetic character that is simply unforgettable

Finally had the opportunity to watch this film. I love Roman Polanski's work. The first two films of The Apartment trilogy are phenomenal. Even his recent stuff is so good (I'm talking especially about Carnage). This is a film he worked on in between Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby and going in I had no idea what it was about. After watching I don't think its among Polanski's best but still enjoyable and pretty damn frenetic like most of his work at the time.

The film follows a gangster and his dying partner who take refuge in a castle out in an island. On this island lives quite a neurotic man and his girlfriend and they kind of have to give into the whims of their captor. In a way push comes to shove and things get hectic between the trio and others coming onto the island. Its hard to explain this film fully giving it justice without spoiling. While the film has flaws and isn't as memorable as some of his others that came out at the same time.

It doesn't really tap into fear and paranoia like Rosemary's Baby and Repulsion; its another thing thematically. I think the comedic aspect of the film kind of hurts it from being one of Polanski's finer works. I think Polanski knows how to tap into fear, anxiety, paranoia and this film is pretty void of that. It's nice seeing Donald Pleasance in something so different prior to his Halloween days.

Overall, its worth a watch for people who really like Polanski's work although he is capable of much better. Its still an alluring experience as with most of his work. It doesn't quite feel as claustrophobic a film as it could be (with the title and his other work). I might go on a bit of a Polanski binge and watch a bunch of other stuff I haven't seen. Or, revisit some of his best which should be fun.

7/10

I thought after connecting with Herzog's STROSZEK, I'd seen the oldest dark comedy that would ever resonate for me on a relatively deep level, but Cul-de-sac just did it, so we can push that number back 11 years from 1977 to 1966.

A couple of Polanski's early films, Repulsion and The Tenant, are already two of my favorite films of all time, so it's no shocker that I loved this as much as I did, but the level of comedy to it was almost unexpected. To me, this movie is primarily a comedy, through and through. I see a lot of mediocre reviews claiming that the comedy was too prominent, which took away from the dread a film would generally attain amidst an effective thriller, however, if you don't view the movie as a thriller, you won't find yourself disappointed...

I was cracking up through the majority of the film. It just gets funnier and funnier as it goes. All 3 lead actors and their respective characters are an absolute riot, each offering their own twist of madness to the group, and they only get more interesting and more amusing as the film progresses. There are a few sequences in which I felt a bit of concern and/or shock as one would with a drama or thriller, but otherwise I simply got off on the wild performances, conversations, and moments throughout. Finally, I understand why Donald Pleasance is a notable actor - what a legendary character and performance he gives here. I also had no idea Catherine Deneuve had an older sister (who apparently died in a car accident soon after making this, her last movie) - she is nearly as intoxicating as her legendary sister, and the rugged Lionel Stander made an epic first impression on me - he's almost like a cartoon character, consistently. You can't take him super seriously as a "villain" but to me that was the point. You put these 3 in a blender and they still won't blend... it's perfect.

On top of all that, the setting and the cinematography is gorgeous. I love the pace of the whole thing. It's long enough that you can get lost in it, and feel like you're stranded there with them. It's just right. The most special part is really just how unique this movie is - the specific combination of everything - I've never seen anything like it. Fully enjoyable and I would absolutely say a CLASSIC and a MUST-SEE as far as Polanski goes. Wonderful!

A diminutive artist (Donald Pleasence) lives with his much-younger French wife (Françoise Dorléac) in a castle on a tidal island in northern England. When a gruff gangster (Lionel Stander) shows up on their doorstep havoc ensues. Iain Quarrier, William Franklyn and a young Jacqueline Bisset show up for peripheral parts.

"Cul-de-Sac" (1966) is one of Roman Polanski's early experiments, a freestyle B&W psychological crime dramedy that takes elements of "The Damned" (1963), "Touch of Evil" (1958) and "A Streetcar Named Desire" (1951) and mixes them with black humor and the theme of the later "Straw Dogs" (1971). Jack Nicholson cited it as his favorite film, which makes sense when you consider Nicholson's "The Shooting" (1966). In tone, it's the precursor to Altman flicks like "The Long Goodbye" (1973).

There's such an improvisational feel that one wonders what the point is: French girls are neurotic and promiscuous? British artists are wussies? Those who live by the gun will die by the gun? No matter how much a person tries to escape the world to focus on fulfilling his/her art (whatever that might be), the corruption of the world will come knocking on your door and might even share your bed? That even a finely cultured man will resort to his primordial nature if backed into a corner?

The film obviously has its partisans, who deem it a masterpiece. There are some interesting technical things going on, like the 7.5 minute scene on the beach, which was one of the longest continuous sequences in cinema up to that point. But the characters are oddball and unlikable while the story is meandering and dramatically dull. Yet the locations, the cast and the themes are to die for, not to mention the eccentricities.

The film runs 1 hour, 52 minutes, and was shot at Holy Island of Lindisfarne, off the coast of northeastern England.

GRADE B-/C+

Captivatingly bizarre movie. Dickie and Albie, both injured and on-the-run following a failed heist, stumble upon effeminate George and promiscuous Teresa's secluded castle on the shore. Lionel Stander as the menacingly uncouth thug Dickie is the standout in the cast as he takes over the household while waiting for the gang boss to come and get him and his partner. Donald Pleasence and Franciose Dorleac as the invaded couple were also excellent as they deal with not only the crooks but an unwelcome family visit. Not for everybody but if you're in the mood for something unusual from the 60s or just wanting to view an example of early Polaski .

CUL-DE-SAC is a psychological comic thriller as an unusual set of surreal circumstances in a realistic landscape. The characters are trapped in a confusing context, which is made up of a mafia, art, promiscuity and perversions. The story is peppered with all sorts of antics, but it is not unpleasant. The plots are inconclusive, but its are enriched with a huge dose of black humor.

A neurotic and effeminate middle-aged Englishman named George lives with his promiscuous young French wife Teresa in a dark castle on a hilltop. Two gangsters, after the unexpected upward tide, invade their messy home and hold them as hostage. Teresa is mad at her timid husband, who does not take any action on the bandits. Gangsters are starting to behave a bit eccentric, while waiting for help from his boss. Uninvited guests come to a visit. Simply, someone has to "boil over"...

Mr. Polanski, in this film, covers topics such as the alienation and a latent madness, which are closely related to a sexual activity. He has managed to replace an emotional void in this film with a combination of black humor, crime and perversion. The characterization is not bad.

Donald Pleasence as George is a kinky and fun husband who has his grotesque moments in this film. He is a man who feels comfortable in a transparent nightgown but he, with a huge dose of disgust, takes a gun in his hand. That is a phenomenal paradox of the situation in the world. His cowardice is ambiguous, because, despite everything, he wants to return a harmonious relation in his home. Lionel Stander as Dickey, through his gangster attitude, distinctive voice and eccentric behavior enjoys the general madness. Françoise Dorléac as Teresa is a beautiful, attractive and nude factor of confusion between George and Dickey.

Mr. Polanski has skillfully managed to balance all segments in this film, but this story still reminds me to a sexy morbid joke.

A wounded criminal, Dickie and his dying partner Albie find an old seaside castle.That castle is full of chickens and it is owned by the meek and a bit neurotic George and his sensual young wife Teresa.Now these two are the hostages of Dickie, who's waiting for his boss to come.Cul-de-sac (1966) was the second film of Roman Polanski in English.It's a fascinating movie, and a bit bizarre, perhaps.You have to like Donald Pleasence's work as George.His character is comical but also tragic, shy and sensitive, someone who's easy to be manipulated.The way George is ridiculed by his woman, who dresses him as a woman and puts on some make-up on him tells a lot about what kind of a man George is.Francoise Dorléac is perfect in the role of his Mrs.Lionel Stander is somewhat sympathetic as Dickie.Jack MacGowran, who's also remembered from Polanski's Dance of the Vampires from the next year, plays Albie brilliantly.Ian Quarrier plays Christopher.Jacqueline Bisset makes her second film appearance in a small role.This movie has a lot of memorable stuff.It's great to watch when they have unexpected guests of George's friends and Dickie has to portray a butler.Or the moments on the beach with Teresa swimming nude in the background.This movie has some comedy.It has some psychological thriller.It has some drama.It has everything to keep you captivated.

"Cul-de-Sac" is another strange kind of a suspense film… It is about a hoodlum invading the privacy of a rich, highly eccentric couple, impresses with its darkly comic account of power games and communication breakdown…

Here Polanski isolated his characters in an old castle on Holy Island, off the Northumberland coast... And what characters they were: Donald Pleasance, putting on his wife's nightie and using her make-up in the retreat to which he had escaped from the unappealing world; Francoise Dorléac as the stunning bird; and Lionel Stander as the savage intruder blundering in…

A lot of critics gave a lot of praise to this film – presumably on the precept that if it's bizarre and a bit perverse and nobody understands it, it must be good… I found it just too bizarre, too perverse, too incomprehensible to sustain the suspense that must have been intended

Cul-de-sac is a very beautiful black and white movie. It belongs to the lightweight category. The story is weird in an entertaining way, often amusing and sad at once. If the director tried to be willingly shallow, he was very successful. And I do not mean that ironically but say it with awe.

The place is Holy Island, on the east coast of Northern England. It actually gets cut off with the tide. Polanski makes very good use of the location and was very lucky with the casting. All characters are rather detestable in a detached sort of way. Donald Pleasance gives the performance of his life as the emasculated, utterly humiliated owner of the castle on the island. The other two main characters are the brisk yet elf like Françoise Dorléac and Lionel Stander as a gruff, brutal gangster. There is a very strange, truly unique chemistry between Dorléac and Stander. Dorléac does something to Stander. «We call dees a bicycle», she says gleefully with her funny accent, and it nearly knocks me off my chair every time I see that well filmed, suspenseful scene. I won‘t tell you what «de bicycle» is – it may need parental guidance to watch it but does not belong to the restrictable area. Cul-de-sac has a very memorable musical score.

If we think of Roman Polanski's pieces, Nóz w wodzie (1962)is more important, Repulsion (1965)is in my opinion almost the best movie ever made, Rosemary's baby (1968)is more horrifying and Le Locataire (1976) is more interesting, not to talk about Chinatown (1974) etc.

So why should you see Cul-de-Sac? Because it's polanski and it's not crappy. And because of Catherine Deneuve's sister Francoise Dorleac, who died way too early (in 1967, just some time after she co-starred Les Demoiselles de Rochefort with her sister).

Once again, the main characters are separated from the world and stranger's are getting in from the outside. The movie is fun, weird and of course a must-see for a Polanski fan.

The wounded criminal Richard "Dicky" (Lionel Stander) and his dying partner Albie (Jack MacGowran) seek for shelter in an old seaside castle full of chickens and owned by the eccentric and coward American George (Donald Pleasence) and his slut French wife Teresa (Françoise Dorléac). While waiting for the rescue of his boss, Albie dies and Dicky develops a strange relationship with the odd couple.

The cult and awarded black comedy "Cul-de-sac" is a weird and bizarre movie. I do not know whether this sort of non-sense humor is dated or works for European, but in my concept most of the jokes are not funny. Nevertheless it is worthwhile watching this film, first because it is one of the first works of the great director Roman Polanski, and also because it is one of the last works of Catherine Deneuve's sister Francoise Dorleac, who prematurely died in 1967 when her sports car crashed and burned in Nice, France. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Armadilha do Destino" ("Trap from the Destiny")

I laughed while watching this movie and I enjoyed it. It really has a good vibe, characters are interesting and well acted, from start to finish. Still, I don't normally like movies like this. Whole movie is one big mental breakdown of the main character, and you can see it miles away and when it starts happening, it's so painful to watch and you can't help but to feel sorry for the fellow. That said, the movie deserves a 10/10 I give it, because it actually does what it sets out to do and that's make you laugh but in the same time witness the sad life of the main character. Oh, and Lionel Stander and Donald Pleasence are great in their roles and it's good to see the latter in something else than "Halloween", which was my experience of him to this day. I recommend this movie if you like dramas and tragicomedy (of course, not in the literary meaning, but as movie genres), and even if you don't it's worth a watch because it's a really good movie.

I was aware of this film for many years but knew nothing about it, apart from the fact, Polanski directed it. I've always, anyway, been a greater fan of the less lauded Polish director, Jerzy Skolimowski, director of the 1970 classic, Deep End.

Cul De Sac is a comedy without laughs, a suspense film without tension, an allegory without obvious allegorical juxtaposition, it nevertheless, maintains a brooding atmosphere and elicits splendid performances from Donald Pleasance as the wimpish, effete keeper of the castle, Francois Dorleac, his sensual wife of ten months standing and Lionel Stander, as the wounded American gangster entering their quaint, secluded,confined, Northumbrian world. The black and white contours of the coast is matched by the elegance and beauty of Dorleac during her regular,unclothed, associations with the water; she has an aura of vulnerability, more so, when I learnt she died in a car crash a year or so after making this film, aged 25.

Some of the dialogue is piquant, but I liked the scene in which ulcer-suffering Pleasance is forced to drink alcohol by the gun-toting Yank and becomes almost human, thereafter. Not a good advert for Alcoholics Anonymous.

When some interlopers appear, the film loses some of it's claustrophobic edginess, but I enjoyed seeing the late William Franklyn in a cameo, taking Dorleac's home-made hooch nervously to his lips, raising an eyebrow and saying "excellent". He later made his name in TV ads in the UK, drinking tonic water and similar, each time uttering an immortal phrase, hinting at the brand name: "Sch, you know who..." In this case, we all know who is behind this interesting period piece.... Polanski, as if you didn't know.

Easily one of Polanski's best (along with Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion, and the Pianist). I've only recently been able to acquire a copy of this fascinating story which seems to combine Harold Pinter with Woody Allen. Fine acting by all, especially the beautiful Francoise Dorleac, possibly one of the most gorgeous and under-rated actresses of the 60's. Donald Pleasance was never creepier or more pathetic. Lionel Stander was born to play Dickie and Jackie Bissett has a nice cameo role. To take this cast to that island and actually film this must have been a nightmare, but Thank God he did. I cannot believe this doesn't have more of a cult following.

Now that it's on DVD, hopefully, it will attract more attention. Great cinematography and Oscar-worthy work from the leads. Rated a 9.

Bored bourgeois dilettante and his bored faux-bohemian wife live out their empty, aristocratic dreams in an isolated castle full of chickens. Chickens for life. Chickens at life. Chickens for eggs. Roosters without purpose, without worker-hens to do their dirty work; the trash piles up. The empty wife is at constant sexual readiness; but she's disappointed with the game and its players. Excitement is desired. And then in walk the criminal element, proletarian in taste, practical in nature. What a mix! There is even a visit to the castle on the hill by other bored bourgeois acquaintances, to punch up the empty, cold idiocy of the scene. And the prolo-crims, loyal to their patriarchal boss, wait to for rescue, for their Godot. But there is no more honour amongst thieves than there is amongst bourgeois and all round, disappointment reigns to the rat-tahtat-tat of gunfire and death. In the end, one betrayal is as good as another and the ultimate alienation which is the product of a narrow, individualistic lifesyle is left to howl in its usual shriveled, muted manner.

Roman Polanski steers a film along in one location or kind of place with just a few characters like it's nobody's business. He's one of the most brilliant at it, at being able to veer away from making things static and stagey just like the chamber pieces Knife in the Water or Death and the Maiden. Cul-de-sac is no exception, but it also has the distinction of being one of Polanski's comedies- however here, perhaps, it's the most successful and masterful of them all (albeit the others I can recall are Fearless Vampire Killers and Pirates, which are good but lessor works) because of his trust in the purely existential horror of the situation. I was laughing to the kind of harrowingly funny situations the characters would get into, or the strange awkwardness of such things as a little kid wielding a shotgun and cursing or watching poor Jack MacGowran stuck with a bullet in his belly in the getaway car as it slowly sinks in the coming tide.

But lest not forget that as with many other Polanski films, for all of his own ferocious and oddly subtle command of a lens (most notable is the 7-minute long take on the beach which is only fluid inasmuch as the characters slightly move about in the setting), the performances catapult it into uncharted territory of eccentricity and brilliance. Lionel Stander, for one, gives maybe one of his definitive performances in a career of minor character actor parts (i.e. "you might remember me as Barman in Once Upon a Time in the West), characterized by his gravely voice and quintessential tough-guy-noir face and demeanor, playing one of the criminals taking over and hiding out in the 11th century castle of Donald Pleasance and Francoise Dorleac. Pleasance and Dorleac are also perfectly cast as seeming caricatures (Pleasance's George as the meek and mild-mannered retired worker and Dorleac as his dripping-with-French-sexy-and-slightly-crazy wife) who peel back layers of their characters as it goes along. At the least, it should be noted, it's an incredible career highlight for the underrated Pleasance and an intriguing and nasty turn from Dorleac.

Cul-de-sac is a howler of a black comedy, with pitch black jokes involving a dead body and his burial, the untimely arrival of a bunch of George's bourgeois friends, and ending in a crazy purging freak-out from George. Sometimes single lines stand out (Stander delivering "Mental retiring or something" is classic), or just a sudden physical motion, and Polanski is always there to add some taut level or even claustrophobia. But what is richest of all in the film is the implications on the human capacity for choice and cruelty. Throughout George is made a point of ridicule, mostly by his own wife, for not being manly enough to stand up to this grater-voiced thug and is not helped by him first appearing- as a funny/personal in-joke between husband and wife- in lipstick and a dress, and we see both his entire spectrum of personality and psychology along with the wife and Richard (poor MacGowran, as mentioned, is relegated mostly to being laid out on a table pontificating as a yin to Richard's yang).

If there could be a word to apply to what unravels in Cul-de-sac morbid would probably be the one to use in describing the bulk of the picture. And Polanski, no stranger to morbidity, transforms his picture into a bizarre, troubling and, very morbid and complex examination of what lies beneath a simple film-noir; it's very funny, very tragic, and satisfying as 60s cinema could get. Only drawback: lack of decent prints in the USA and lack of access to videos make it near impossible to see the picture as originally intended or in good condition. Thankfully, it's so good that one can forgive finding the occasional bootleg with so-so transfer quality.

Roman Polanski's third full-length feature is perhaps his strangest and hardest to define. Supposedly it was a personal project that Polanski and his collaborators had to fight to get on the screen, although perhaps by the time they finally got to make it they had lost some of their enthusiasm, as Cul-de-sac has a somewhat weary feel to it.

Polanski returns here to similar themes as those explored in his previous pictures, and ones he would often return to again, in particular isolation, regret and the breakdown of a fragile social set-up. The central idea appears to be a man's private paradise turning into his personal hell. It's the first of a number of Polanski's films to be set inside a castle (Polanski was massively influenced by Laurence Olivier's Hamlet), but unfortunately his trademark use of claustrophobic space – that feeling that the walls are pressing in – isn't quite up to scratch here. Cul-de-sac is more about the idea of isolation than actually conveying a physical sense of it, like he does fairly well in Repulsion, and expertly in Rosemary's Baby and The Tenant.

What makes Cul-de-sac stand out though is that it also happens to be a kind of comedy. While it isn't quite laugh-a-minute, there are plenty of little gags here and there that are bound to raise the odd chuckle. There is the fact that the gangsters are escaping from the bungled heist in a car stolen from a driving school, some witty dialogue and overall an air of silliness that actually works very well. The comedy actually turns out to be Cul-de-sac's saving grace. The jokes, not to mention the over the top performances by Donald Pleasance, Lionel Stander and Jack MacGowran (the biggest names Polanski had worked with thus far) are really what makes this watchable. It's also worth noting that, while it's a completely different film Polanski's next feature, Fearless Vampire Killers, was also his only out-and-out comedy.

Not only is Cul-de-sac Polanski's last feature in black and white, it is also his last avant-garde film. After this he would concentrate on more accessible (and incidentally, more finely crafted) pictures. Nevertheless a picture like Cul-de-sac, much like the films of Werner Herzog contains enough quirkiness and inventiveness to keep it entertaining in spite of its art-house roots.

Roman Polanski's third feature Cul-De-Sac is a more comedic take on an age-old premise: a couple (Donald Pleasance and Francoise Dorleac) are put upon by a criminal on the run (Lionel Stander) and the film becomes a power game of their interactions. It doesn't have much in the way of narrative, but instead builds itself around the ups and downs of their power struggles and the way they confront one another, as a whole or in individual pairings. It starts off well enough with a solid opening act that had quite a few laughs, mostly thanks to Pleasance, but after a while it began to wear thin.

The entire thing relies on your interest in the characters and their games of power and sexual undertones with one another, but I couldn't have cared less about any of them so I found myself dreadfully bored for most of it. The final act raised my interest a little bit as everything goes wildly out of control, but it took too long for me to get there. Lionel Stander is a solid presence, creating a very uneasy feeling whenever he walks in the room, but Dorleac and Pleasence began to grate on my nerves rather quickly. I've always been a big Polanski fan and he still shows here his ability to create a complete atmosphere that is fully in tune with his vision, along with his fetish for isolating his characters in secluded locations, but I unfortunately didn't care about the characters in a film that is all about them.