Poor Candy Brown (Mandy Miller). She cannot get anybody to believe her. She's 100% certain that her cold blooded stepfather Paul Decker (Peter van Eyck) has murdered her mother, despite the evidence seeming to indicate that the woman committed suicide. Mandy, who also believes in her heart that Paul had similarly murdered her father once upon a time, sticks to her guns. But the adults around her keep stubbornly insisting that she *must* be making all of this up.It's easy to be on Candy's side here. With so many thick headed adult characters, you truly feel her frustration and desperation. Will she ever obtain the proof she needs that Paul is a creep? People like her chaperone Jean Edwards (Betta St. John, "The City of the Dead"), Mr. Wilson (William Franklyn), or the hearty police inspector (Gregoire Aslan) refuse to take her seriously, even though she doesn't seem to be the sort of girl who'd be prone to flights of fancy.The suspense lies not in a "did he or didn't he" scenario - we see Paul murder Candy's mother in the quiet, ingenious opening set piece. The title object plays a pivotal role. Rather, the tension arises in Candy's predicament, and whether or not she'll be vindicated before the evil Paul strikes again. And we know it's possible. The looks he keeps giving her show that he thinks that he'll have to kill her just to shut her up.Efficient direction by Oscar winning cinematographer Guy Green ("Great Expectations", 1946) and sharp black & white photography make this a fine entertainment, as well as strong performances from all concerned. Miller makes Candy a sympathetic character, and with his facial features van Eyck was obviously a natural for screen villainy.This viewer would suggest that fans of Hammer horror give features like this a try, just to show that the famed British studio wasn't just a one trick pony.Seven out of 10.

Sensitive Mandy Miller was Britain's top child star of the 1950s (until Hayley Mills came along) and really dazzled critics in her (almost) first film "Mandy". While she never again gave such an outstanding performance and left films while still a teenager, "The Snorkel" (suprisingly her last feature film) will always be remembered as a career highlight if only for it's gimmicky slant on the old "locked door" murder mystery. Anthony Dawson, well known for his villainous roles (especially as Ray Milland's former school fellow in "Dial M For Murder") provided the story and some really nice locations were used at the Villa della Pergola and Savona and Liguria, along the Italian Riviera.Candy is convinced her step father Paul (Van Eyck) has killed her mother, just as she believes he killed her father but no one believes her. She is right though, as viewers see in a gripping start to the movie - he does it by making it look like suicide by being able to stay in the room via a trap door under the rug and by being able to breath through a snorkel. And that is what the police can't get past - if he did somehow manage to kill Candy's mother, how did he breathe? Smart Candy starts to figure it out immediately, especially when she sees a poster advertising the joys of snorkeling.This is an excellent "why won't anyone believe me?" story really helped by the main character's (Candy) resourcefulness and determination. Candy realises she will have to dig up proof on her own - starting with Paul's passport, if, as he claims, he was in France at the time, his passport would be stamped right??? Actually Toto, Candy's little cocker spaniel is right on to things - finding the trap door and back at the hotel ferreting out Paul's snorkel. It seems wherever Paul hides it playful Toto fetches - by the look on Paul's face things are not looking too good for Toto. Jean (Betta St. John), Candy's governess, is around but she is no use as she has come under Paul's spell and is viewing Candy more and more as a troubled young girl.The last ten minutes are nail bitingly suspenseful. Paul decides to go to France, to get away from Candy's relentless accusations but his hotel is only just over the border, giving him all the time in the world to return at night to murder whoever he likes and he does slip back via ----!!! He has lured Candy to the villa by impersonating a policeman over the phone and she almost becomes victim no. 4 but Jean, in an unusual case of the smarts, has alerted people that Candy may have gone to the villa to take her own life!!No one could play the cold as ice killer better than Peter Van Eyck, with his startling blonde crew cut and menacing manner. He is not particularly cool, calm and collected when he realises he may be trapped under the floor boards and only Candy is there to hear his muffled cries. But she then does a "Gaslight" with her "it's just my imagination, it must be!!" Will she alert authorities or keep that detached look on her face all the way to the airport???

A woman is murdered by her husband in an ingenious manner. He kills her with gas and hides in the room under the floor. Why does he remain inside the room and hidden? Because, since the door was locked from the inside, everyone assumed it was a suicide...at least everyone but the victim's young daughter. What makes it interesting is not really the murder but what happens after...when this teen begins making accusations that appear unfounded. Apparently, the killer is sick of it...or perhaps he always planned on also killing the kid--either way, by the end of the film he's ready to murder her as well. This leads to a particularly inspired ending. While I might have made it even a bit darker, I did like how the writer made it a little vague as to what happened next. I am sorry I sound a bit cryptic--I just don't want to divulge exactly what happens next.According to IMDb, the way the murderer commits his crime and gets away with it is impossible--and I certainly assume IMDb is correct about this. So, while it's not possible for a person to use a scuba-like device to kill someone and avoid asphyxiation (at least the way they show it here), it does keep your interest. Plus Van Eyck was a great villain and the film sure ended on a high note--making the film well worth seeing.

This terrific thriller is the equal of some of Alfred Hitchcock's work. There is non-stop frustration because an original device is used to commit a murder. No one can see how it has been done. The picture shows everyone watching how it is accomplished in the very beginning except of course, the other characters.Peter van Eyck plays the monster and a true monster he is. This guy is as suave and convincing as Joseph Cotten in Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt which is #169 in IMDb's list of top films. He is much more ruthless, savage and, well, just plain meaner than hell. He has created the most hateful character I think I've ever seen.Of course that's what makes this such an outstanding film. The only person who knows for sure how evil he is would naturally be the most innocent young girl cinema has ever seen. She just doesn't know how he's done it. I will say no more other than to say this: WATCH FOR IT! DON'T MISS IT! DON'T IGNORE IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S A HAMMER PRODUCTION!