SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

After a young girl tragically dies in the bath, her family sends her older brother away to an institution- fearing he was responsible for her death.However, upon his return home, he is adamant that the nanny did it.As close calls continue and mysterious poisonings become the norm...both the nanny and the boy lay the blame on each other.But the film is constructed in a way, as to heighten suspense, and keep you in the dark as to who the true culprit really is.Though, the original incident may very well have been an accident that both played a part in (unbeknownst to the other). Everyone blames the boy, because he's a bit of a sh*t disturber. But does that make him a cold-hearted killer? Perhaps, he is just the perfect scapegoat...In the end, this is a classic psycho-biddy (a sub-genre of thrillers from the 1960's, where older women go senile and turn deadly). And it's really well made. The acting is great. The cinematography is excellent. And it puts you, as the viewer, in the detective seat The Nanny is an expertly suspenseful thriller, that will keep you guessing...even when you think you have it all figured out.Great film.7 out of 10.

Some years ago i allowed my two children aged 11 and 13, to watch this with me. No regrets, my daughters loved it, and we had lots to talk about it afterwards. When i saw this very creepy work in the early 1970's it reminded me of a 1960's world. Children were not believed when adults disputed their versions of events. Viewing this film without knowing the story is probably a good idea, rather than reading the very trustworthy reviews. Remember the best 10 Hollywood horror films, you ever saw, then switch off the lights, the central heating, the phone, and watch this alone...yes very very alone......with a very very sober head.

Bette Davis (in thick eyebrows and speaking very precisely and condescendingly) plays a prim English governess who may or may not be responsible for the drowning death of a child left in her care. Oddly muffled, but absorbing, creepy and generally well-acted suspense-melodrama from Britain's Hammer Films. Crack screenwriter Jimmy Sangster, adapting Evelyn Piper's novel, includes a terrific role for precocious William Dix as the nanny's young nemesis, but the tools are not quite present in Piper's original material for Davis to let loose and make a grand show of it (she's "in character" throughout: tense, fake-polite and rather glum). Audiences in 1965 were probably hoping for a macabre camp-thriller, another entry in the "Baby Jane" subgenre of older actresses cast in psychological creep-outs, but the shocks are rather subdued. This restrained approach, however, works to the picture's advantage, as the scenario plays more effectively as a dark character portrait rather than as a screamer. Davis is backed by a solid supporting cast, including Pamela Franklin as an amusingly typical teenage girl who lives in the apartment upstairs, and many film-historians have now hailed the picture as one of the best Hammer productions from this era. **1/2 from ****

The story twists, acting, and direction make a difference in this superior entry among Hammer Studios' series of black & white psychological thrillers. Bette Davis plays the titular character, working for a family that includes an often absent father, Bill (James Villiers), an unstable mother, Virginia (Wendy Craig), and a bratty son, Joey (William Dix). Joey's spent some time away and is just now returning home. For whatever reason, he *really* doesn't like the nanny, and makes this quite clear. It's got something to do with the death of Joey's kid sister Susy (Angharad Aubrey).Hammer veteran Jimmy Sangster scripted, from the novel by Evelyn Piper, and also produced. Seth Holt directs with a sure hand. Davis does some wonderfully understated work, while young Dix delivers an engaging performance. As this story plays out and the revelations occur, one realizes that both the Nanny and Joey can be considered sympathetic characters. In fact, all of the characters command ones' attention, with Pamela Franklin doing well as a neighbour who becomes Joey's confidante. And Jill Bennett is superb as the weary Aunt Pen, who has to be careful not to exert herself or get excited due to a weak heart. Jack Watling, Maurice Denham, and Alfred Burke are excellent in support.Richard Rodney Bennett composed the affecting music score; Harry Waxman did the crisp b&w cinematography. The film is very well made and the story very well told.Eight out of 10.