..when she saw what she had done, she gave his girlfriend 41.

Strait-Jacket is produced and directed by William Castle and written by Robert Bloch. It stars Joan Crawford, Diane Baker, Leif Erickson, Howard St. John, Rochelle Hudson and George Kennedy. Music is by Van Alexander and cinematography by Arthur E. Arling.

Lucy Harbin (Crawford) has spent 20 years in a mental asylum for the brutal axe murders of her husband and his mistress. Released back into society, Lucy goes to live at the farm of her brother Bill (Erickson),where Lucy's grown up daughter Carol (Baker) also resides. Pretty soon, though, Lucy is plagued by horrible visions and begins to hear upsetting things, and now it seems that the people she is coming into contact with are being brutally murdered….with an axe.

Grand Dame Guignol

It seems on odd blend on first glance, Oscar winner Crawford paired up with Castle, maestro of the gimmick led movie, producing a film written by Bloch, author of the novel that would become Hitchcock's Psycho. Yet while it's hardly a true horror picture, the kind to have you gnawing away at your nails, it's unashamedly fun whilst carrying with it a bubbling under the surface sense of dastardly misadventure. Sensibly filming it in moody black and white, Castle, who certainly wasn't the most adventurous of directors, did have a sense for tone and an awareness of what worked for his target audience. Strait-Jacket is a solid murder mystery on the page, and on the screen it's coupled with some flashes of axe wielding terror. Having a woman who is the protagonist-who may be the antagonist-also adds bite to Castle's production, but he, and his film, are indebted to Crawford and her wonderful OTT trip into self parody.

Joan Blondell was all set to play Lucy Harbin, but an accident at home meant she was unable to fill the role. Castle got lucky, he needed a star, and with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? Reinvigorating Crawford's career two years previously, Crawford was once again a name actress. Bumping into Crawford at a party, Castle sold the pitch to her, even bluffing her that the part was written with her in mind. It was a goer, but Crawford held sway with all the decisions, including script rewrites and choice of staff to work on the picture with her. It paid off, because after what was largely a trouble free shoot , film was a success and Castle had one of the best films of his career. Here Castle had the ultimate gimmick to sell his film, Crawford herself, although he couldn't resist some sort of tie-in so had millions of tiny cardboard axes made up to give to paying punters at the theatre.

Sure it's a film that nods towards Psycho and Baby Jane et al, but the denouement here more than holds its own, while there's also a glorious bit of fun to be observed at the end with the Columbia Torch Lady logo suitably tampered with. Those actors around Crawford invariably fall into her shadow, but it's a mostly effective cast and Arling's photography blends seamlessly with the unfolding story.

So not outright horror, then, more a psychological drama with some horror elements. But, which ever way you look at it, Crawford's performance is value for money as she files in for a bit of psycho- biddy. 7.5/10

This movie is a bit hard to rate because if you look at the movie technically, the film deserves perhaps a 7 or 8. If you look at the film for its pure over-the-top entertainment value, then a score of 10 is merited. I split the difference and give the movie an 9.

Okay, so technically, this movie is a bit predictable at times (particularly because the writers didn't develop enough characters to make knowing WHO the bad person is much of a surprise--though WHY she went on a killing spree was very cleverly done). And, the movie is very campy and histrionic (overly emotional) at times--especially with all the scenes involving knives and blood and chopping that have nothing to do with murders!

However, for pure entertainment, this is a truly great film. Yes, I know the film is very cheesy and low-brow but for what it is, it is fantastic!!! Joan Crawford, usually noted for her lack of subtlety in acting, is perfect as the crazy-eyed and emotionally labile maniac who butchered her philandering husband. And, despite the effects being terribly funny (heads go flying off with a single blow with a dull-looking axe--an amazing feat indeed),the film is compelling throughout.

If you compare this to other similar over-the-top shockers of the time starring washed up actresses (such as HUSH, HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE or WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?),this movie is simply a lot more fun. And, considering how much I loved HUSH, HUSH, that's saying a lot! How this film has not achieved cult status is beyond me--it is well worth seeing again and again!

SPOILER NOTE!!!! This film has the absolute cleverest final scene I have ever witnessed. I don't want to spoil it, but you MUST MUST MUST watch every bit of this film--even the final frames!!! You WON'T be disappointed! Seriously, folks--it rivals the funny intro to THE MOUSE THAT ROARED (also by Columbia Pictures).

PS--for those who love odd film trivia, Joan Crawford was married to one of the high-ranking execs of Pepsi in the late 1950s. During this time and after his death, she held SIGNIFICANT shares in the company and insisted in her movies that somehow Pepsi products and advertising sneak into the her films. In some, she stands with a Pepsi sign behind her, in others she talks while holding a Pepsi bottle and in this film in the kitchen is a case of Pepsi during a scene in the film. I really enjoy LOOKING for the Pepsi--it's almost always there in her later films.

UPDATE: I watched this film on the big screen at the TCM Classic Movie Cruise...along with an introduction by Diane Baker. I loved this second viewing and was really, really glad to hear all the folks laughing and enjoying this kitschy film so much. It's clear I am not alone in my love for this movie! Definitely one of the highlights of the cruise for many people.

Have appreciated horror/thriller for a long time now and the idea sounded intriguing. When Joan Crawford was at her best, she was brilliant and was one of the best actresses of her time in my view. William Castle was known for making low budget films quickly, but actually that didn't mean he couldn't direct ('House on Haunted Hill' proves that). Expectations though were mixed, with it being a failure on release, opinions here being either camp classic or schlock and that it was made during Crawford's twilight period.

'Strait-Jacket' for me was surprisingly good. It is not quite a classic, though it is certainly camp in a very entertaining way, but it is not schlocky either. In my view, it is one of Castle's better films (not just of this period but overall) and one of Crawford's better 60s films in a decade that really didn't see her or her film choices at her best. Her performance here is also one of her best of her twilight period, her last "great" film being perhaps 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane'.

Is 'Strait-Jacket' perfect? No, a long way from being so. The script is too exposition-heavy, which does affect the pacing in the middle, and the camp level of a lot of it reaches extremes. The ending can be seen from miles away and is pretty absurd.

Also found the score rather shrill and that attempted seduction unnecessary and unintentionally creepy.

Crawford however gives it absolutely everything and is quite thrilling to watch. Diane Baker does innocence without being too passive and conveys the horror of the situation later well without being histrionic. George Kennedy can also be seen in a subtle yet unsettling role. Castle's direction is more than competent with a keen eye for atmosphere and doesn't resort to too many gimmicks.

With exception of the odd hokey special effect, 'Strait-Jacket' looks surprisingly good for low budget. The photography and lighting being very atmospheric and creepy-looking. The story is mostly very entertaining to watch and has some very suspenseful moments, the murders (especially the shocking, for the time it certainly was, onscreen one) being enough to make one to be go off axes forever.

To summarise, not a great film and one can understand as to why it was a failure at the time (Crawford herself was not positive about it),but did find myself enjoying it quite immensely. 7/10