How Awful About Allan (1970 TV Movie) User Reviews (35)

Scarface at the Bates motel

[Chase_Witherspoon · 5/10 · 31 August 2012]

Atmospheric psychological thriller has Perkins ideally cast as the brooding music lecturer, left psychosomatically blinded after he witnesses his father perish in a house fire, which also disfigures his elder sister (Harris). After spending eight months in a mental hospital he returns to the house and is cared for by his sister, but his recovery is hampered by the presence of a suspicious boarder who comes and goes under cloak of darkness, and who Perkins is convinced, is trying to kill him.

It's sometimes tense and gripping, though the small-scale TV treatment confines the plot to strictly minor status. Hackett co-stars as the kindly neighbour, keen to help Perkins emerge from his deteriorating psychosis, while Kent Smith has a bit part as the once-feared patriarch, favoured by Harris but with whom Perkins' relationship was strained.

Provokes an occasional shiver, but it's still a very timid tale that relies too much on the wind machines and 'dark, stormy night' routine, a consequence (but not necessarily an excuse) perhaps of the TV budget. There's a throwback moment to "Psycho" at the film's climax which might bring a smile to your face if you know what to look for, while the distinguished cast deliver their dialogue with stage-born professionalism and the overall result is a modest time-filler with potential.

Poor Anthony has family issues again...

[Coventry · 7/10 · 28 November 2016]

Anthony Perkins became legendary and immortal thanks to "Psycho" in which he portrayed Norman Bates; a mentally very unstable boy with a more than unhealthy bond with his mother. I honestly wouldn't go as far as to call this typecasting, but in this slick and underrated TV-thriller Perkins depicts another mentally troubled young man and once again family issues are to blame for his condition! During the intro of the film we witness how Allan (Perkins) stares almost emotionless at the house fire that kills his father (a profound doctor) and mutilates his sister Katherine. From the shock, and probably also the guilt, Allan spontaneously loses his eye-sight. I didn't know this was possible, in fact, but the physician at the mental hospital carefully explains that Allan's blindness is purely psychosomatic. Eight months after the tragedy, Allan returns – arguably too soon – to his parental house to live with his sister who underwent plastic surgery to cover the burning wounds. Soon after his arrival, Allan becomes convinced that someone is trying to scare him away or even kill him, but his blurry visions can only identify a vague shape that wanders around the house. Is it the student tenant that his sister accepted into the house to generate an extra income? Or perhaps Katherine's old lover who returned from abroad and whom Allan never could stand? Or, who knows, perhaps Allan's fear of getting killed is only psychosomatic as well? "How Awful about Allan" is a typical TV-thriller from the early seventies, meaning that it benefices from a rather simplistic but nevertheless absorbing story, an atmosphere relying on suspense instead of action or gore and a handful of dedicated acting performances. The biggest trump here is that we, the audience, witness practically all the attacks from Allan's point of view and thus also only see vague shapes and blurred faces as well. Through this minor detail, director Curtis Harrington ("Games", "What's the matter with Helen?") upholds the mystery until the climax and makes it difficult for the viewer to make up his/her mind regarding Allan's true state of mind. There are a few powerful and creepy sequences, notably when a petrified Allan tries to drive off in a car and forgets for a moment that he's as good as blind. "How Awful about Allan" is perhaps not entirely on par with the absolute greatest TV-thrillers of the early seventies, but it's a good film and establishes the versatile talents of both its director Curtis Harrington and protagonist Anthony Perkins.

Don't avoid this fine psychological thriller simply because it was a TV-movie!

[talisencrw · 7/10 · 6 April 2016]

I had previously read about director Curtis Harrington in Barron's excellent book for cinephiles, '501 Movie Directors', though I had unfortunately not been able to find any of his films before this. He definitely has fine technique for getting across moodiness and suspense, at least in this type of film. Hopefully I'll eventually find and watch all of his work.

'How Awful About Allan' is a pretty decent moody, intense, creepy psychological thriller with two of my favourite thespians in that department--Anthony Perkins and Julie Harris. It's a tad claustrophobic and difficult to get into at the start, because of this aforementioned intensity, but if you stick with it, it's quite intrinsically rewarding and definitely not a late-night waste of 90 minutes.

When Perkins' 'Allan' picks up a picture and says, 'Mother,' I couldn't help but smile. What an interesting and ill-fated actor.

A Blurry Good Time

[inspectors71 · 9 December 2005]

Within the limitations of television, this was a tidy little entertainment. How Awful About Allan transcended the crummy cheapness that marred Made-for-TV movies from their historical onset. This pleasantly scary story was better than average because of its workmanlike performances, its unnerving story, and the fact that its main character, Tony Perkins, is not totally sympathetic.

Even if you peg the reasons that Perkins has hysterical blindness (and it's wonderfully frustrating seeing the blurred images he's seeing) from the start, the movie accomplishes what it must do right from the start--it causes you to give a damn. You watch because you must.

Finally, there's a special place in my heart for "Olive," played by the late, great Joan Hackett. She was a lovely woman whose quirky, passionate performances always seemed to lift the quality of a film an extra notch.

Anthony Perkins and Julie Harris are just fine, too.

So, get to a dollar store or the Wal-Mart dollar DVD kiosk, grab a copy of How Awful About Allan and swing by the warm blankey department--you're gonna need it.

Norman, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh!

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 30 March 2007]

This is a pretty good made for TV film. Tony Perkins is always worth watching. He so underplays his character that for a long time, I couldn't stand him. There are lots of people who care about him and he seems so ungrateful. Then weird stuff begins to happen. He is so filled with guilt, feeling he is responsible for the fiery death of his abusive father and the disfigurement of his sister, we can see the guilt, there on his sleeve. Though he is aware of his anger, he still tries to go on. At one point, he really begins the process to get himself put back in the institution which held him since the fire. People try to help him, but there is a constant undercurrent of deception. But we can't put our fingers on it. Perkins does so much with his facial expressions and, of course, Julie Harris is one of America's best actresses. There are many twists and turns and questions and they are subtly put forth. There is no heavy handedness here, which would have ruined the film. See it if you can.

TV movies are the best!

[BandSAboutMovies · 6/10 · 20 May 2020]

Along with What's the Matter With Helen?, this movie is one of the two collaborations between writer Henry Farrell and director Curtis Harrington. It was the ABC Movie of the Week on September 22, 1970 and has stood the test of time as one of the better TV movies. And there's some stiff competition for that.

Shot in just 12 days, it stars Anthony Perkins as Allan Colleigh, who has psychosomatic blindness after an accident - he left paint cans too close to a fire - that killed his abusive father and scarred his sister Katharine (Julie Harris from the 1963 version of The Haunting).

After Allan returns to their home after time in a mental hospital, he's convinced that everyone is out to get him, including a new boarder with speaks in a hoarse whisper and one of his sister's ex-boyfriends on the phone.

Joan Hackett - who was in two great TV movies, Dead of Night and The Possessed - appears as Allan's former girlfriend. She gets caught up in his mania as rooms of the house explode into flames and he's kidnapped by that mysterious ex.

How Awful About Allan has plenty of actors as comfortable on the stage as they were on the big or small screen. Perkins agreed to wear special contacts that completely made him blind so that his performance would be more realistic.

This didn't get great reviews when it came out, but do the movie we love ever do?

Oedipus Rex Reversed

[BaronBl00d · 5/10 · 30 October 2005]

Effective psychological "thriller" about a man that has subconsciously lost his sight due to a tragedy that befell him and his family when a child. Little Alan blames himself for setting a fire that kills his mean and nasty father and scars his sister whose bigger loss is her much beloved father. Anthony Perkins gives a pretty good performance of a man torn apart from his past and now lives with his sister after years of being institutionalized. Perkins obviously has experience playing psychotic individuals, and his Alan is not overdone at all. In fact I thought Perkins gave a very restrained performance. Julie Harris is equally up to task as his sister who must deal with her returning brother, her life such as it is, and economic issues. Money is so tight that she must let a room to a boarder...and then things begin to cave in for Alan and his life still only seeing things through a blur. This movie was made for television and it shows. There is not a lot of action and really no performers of any note outside the leads and Joan Hackett as an old flame for Alan. The film was directed by Curtis Harrington, veteran of some older genre films and later What's the Matter with Helen? and Whoever Slew Aunite Roo?. Harrington is always steady behind the lens and ably creates some tension and suspense even though his obvious budgetary restraints shine. All in all, How Awful About Alan delivers a taut examination of how we sometimes internalize the pain that we live with and what must happen to it to cleanse our souls.

Faces in the dark.

[ulicknormanowen · 7/10 · 24 March 2021]

Based on a Henry Farell novel ,widely known for " whatever happened to baby Jane?", "how awful about Allan" is actually closer to "hush hush sweet Charlotte "in which wicked cousin Olivia De Havilland and her old beau Joseph Cotten wanted to do pitiful Bette Davis away from her valuable house .Both were Aldrich's works.

Curtiz Harrington is not Aldrich :his "games" was a "diabolique " rip-off but his "whoever slew aunt Roo" was an effective "nursery crime" thanks to Shelley Winters .

Condidering the limitations he was working under ,(twelve-day shooting), "how awful" survived the paucity of the means thanks to its first-class cast :both Perkins ("psycho" )and Harris ("the haunting " 1963) were familiar with this kind of material and neurotic characters .Add Joan Hackett and a haunting score and you get above-average MTV : although it borrows from other movies (the scene when Perkins is pushed into the room in fire will remind you of Martin Basalm's death in "psycho" )and Hitchcock did not need storm every night like here!

A subjective blurred version helps create the suspense ,and a strange student who does not speak "above a whisper " does too .And Perkins (whose last close-up is one more time influenced by "psycho" ) and Harris are so brilliant one does not know who is framing who.

Awful

[ags123 · 3/10 · 22 April 2014]

It pains me to write about how awful this movie is because it has such great credentials. Let's start with the cast. Anthony Perkins is always interesting to watch, especially in non-typecast roles like "Goodbye Again" and "Five Miles To Midnight." But by 1970, the Norman Bates persona was wearing thin and looking rather one-note, though not yet milked to death by endless "Psycho" sequels. Julie Harris is at her whiniest in this one, worse than her cloying performance in "The Haunting." And dear Joan Hackett, who always lent an extra layer of depth to her characters is totally wasted in a non-essential role. Director Curtis Harrington helmed one of my favorite guilty pleasures, 1967's "Games," which showed a sure-handed flair for suspense and visual sophistication, none of which is evident in this film. Writer Henry Farrell transcended mere Gothic horror in "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane" by making a strong statement about the price of fame. Composer Laurence Rosenthal produced many fine film scores, like "The Miracle Worker." but no audio cues stand out here. With all this talent at work, how did this movie turn out to be such a bore? It moves at a snail's pace, has no logic or suspense, and builds to a climax you'll see coming a mile away.

Above Average TV-Thriller...Good Cast & Director...Well-Crafted Psychological Study

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 19 October 2021]

Anthony Perkins in an Unnerving Made-for-TV Thriller is On-Game and Never Looked More Handsome.

Helped by Good Cast Members Julie Harris and Joan Hackett, it's a Well-Made Effective Use of Practical Effects and Mood.

Made at What is Perhaps the Height of the Made-for-TV Trend, by Cult Director Curtis Harrington, also On-Game.

No Wasted Time in the 72 Mn Run. The 3 Actors All Contribute as the Short-Story of a Trauma Victim (Perkins) Relies on the Help of His Sister and Former Girl-Friend for Rehab.

Some Chills and Much Mystery is Afoot.

Paranoia Seeps from Every Frame in this Moody, Captivating Psychological Study.

Well-Crafted, Well-Acted, and Well-Written Story that is...

Worth a Watch.

Middling psychological thriller

[gridoon2024 · 5/10 · 22 January 2013]

"How Awful About Allan" has some atmosphere, and occasionally makes good use of the "half-blindness" gimmick (like in one scene where Anthony Perkins mistakenly thinks that some college students are laughing at him), but the plot is both obvious (you'll know who the "roomer" is right from the start) and repetitive (how many scenes of Perkins wandering around in his house in the middle of the night while a voice keeps whispering "Allan! Allan! Allan! Allan!" can a 73-minute movie have?). Perkins was already typecast in this type of "mentally disturbed" characters by that point (one of the alternate titles of this movie was "Psycho II"!!), but he does play them well, and he receives good support here from Julie Harris and Joan Hackett. Just don't expect to be shocked when the person who's manipulating Perkins is unmasked. ** out of 4.

An Intense, Dramatic Psychological Thriller

[Rainey-Dawn · 9/10 · 21 May 2016]

Right from the start of this film I was captivated. This is one of those family drama films where one of them or someone else near the family is off their rocker - but who and why? It's a film that builds suspenseful steam towards it's climax with a stare at the end that only Anthony Perkins could pull off so well.

There are a couple of moments in the film where you will think of Psycho like when Allan or Anthony Perkins picks up a photo and says "Mother?" and that stare at the end. BUT the character of Allan is not like Norman Bates, you would have to watch "Allan" to see the clear differences in the two characters - which Perkins pulls both off well.

I have seen this film before - it's a vague memory - but was very pleased to see this one again. Well worth watching if you like GOOD made-for-TV films, Anthony Perkins and intense, dramatic psychological thrillers. They don't make 'em like this anymore folks.

9/10

Good cast trapped in BLAND TV movie.

[capkronos · 5/10 · 9 July 2003]

Allan (Anthony Perkins) is blamed for an accidental fire that killed his father (Kent Smith), disfigured his sister (Julie Harris, who wears a plastic device over part of her face) and landed him in an institution. Eight months later, partially blind and guilt-stricken, he's let out of an institution and rents a room from his estranged sibling in an effort to put his life back together, but someone is out for revenge and wants to drive him crazy. Is it his darling sis? Friendly neighbor/ex-girlfriend Olive (Joan Hackett)? The creepy new boarder? The father back from the grave? Or is it just in Allan's mind?

Perkins can do the paranoid/fragile/slipping-sanity act in sleep and Harris and Hackett offer good support, but this telepic is dull, light on plot and fizzles out way before the finale. Blurry POV shots and murky photography make for a pretty oppressive viewing experience. Henry Farrell adapted his novel of the same name. Aaron Spelling was the executive producer.

Moody, creepy, intense, and effective psychological thriller.

[BrentCarleton · 15 March 2004]

For some inexplicable reason, this telefeature is but rarely accorded the respect it merits. In point of fact, it is a most accomplished, gripping, and well acted affair, from the days when a "made for TV" movie, could still boast performers, writing, and technical credentials of the first water.

The story is an intense, psychological study of a young man suffering from hysterical blindness following the death of his professor father in a fire. Set in a large, shadowy, Victorian house, this very Gothic story hinges on the sibling rivalry between the young man and his spinster sister, both of whom blame themselves, in different ways, for their father's demise. Eventually, the young man's sanity begins to give way, in the face of a series of inexplicable hauntings, which may, or may not be supernatural. Only the denouement will tell.

With its pronounced subtext of repressed, family guilt, the film has literary antecedents in the work of Shirley Jackson, Walter De La Mare, and Nathanial Hawthorne.

Starring a cast of major (big screen) movie and stage actors, this film has everything that is conspicuously absent in current television: an excellent musical score, evocative photography, muted lighting, accomplished art direction, an interesting premise and script, intelligent dialogue, (gasp!)and a very good sense of pacing.

Add to that, a baseline story that improves on the novel upon which it was based, (yes I read it) and you have a viewing experience very different from the "made for TV's" of today, which are,(I'm told--since I don't watch them) an endless stream of tedious, politically correct, AIDS,Anorexia, and spouse abuse victim propaganda studies--I believe the catch phrase is "victim of the week" stories.)

All in all, "How Awful About Allan" serves as a sad reminder of what was still artistically possible in the world of commercial television, in the not too distant past.

Burned!

[wes-connors · 4/10 · 24 June 2008]

"A man is unable to save his father from a fire that kills him and disfigures his sister. Sent away to a mental institution for evaluation, the man returns later to take up residence at his sister's home. Psychosomatically blinded by the incident, the man struggles with his life daily but finds things harder for him, when strange incidents begin to happen to him that has people doubting his sanity. Is it someone with a vendetta against him or is it something far more sinister?" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Psycho-acting Anthony Perkins (as Allen) is good, gradually building up sympathy for his character's questionable point of view. Scarred sister Julie Harris (as Katherine) and girlfriend Joan Hackett (as Olive) provide fine support. Yet, this TV movie squanders everything in its final seconds, as the title "How Awful About Allen" is reprised. It's difficult to comprehend what is being suggested; perhaps, it was meant to stifle the previous predictability. Good cast, though.

**** How Awful About Allan (9/22/70) Curtis Harrington ~ Anthony Perkins, Julie Harris, Joan Hackett

pretty boring

[ofumalow · 3/10 · 3 August 2014]

Despite the terrific-sounding cast and talented director, this is a pretty poor TVM in which nobody gets anything interesting to do and there's little real atmosphere (let alone plot intrigue). It's obvious (at least it was obvious to me) from an early point just who the mysterious new tenant who's spooking recent nuthouse-released Allan really is, so there's very little suspense. All the actors here have sketched much better portraits of paranoia and instability than they're allowed here.

I guess I didn't include enough lines. Julie Harris, Anthony Perkins, and Joan Hackett get nothing of interest to do here. Is that enough lines, IMDb?

You can call me Alful

[amosduncan_2000 · 2/10 · 18 November 2014]

Perhaps it's because these two extreme talents are now gone that the waste of "How Awful About Allen" seems more acute. As a made for TV affair it would just be forgettable dreck where it not for the presence of Perkins and Harris, two great stars with one genre classic each to there credit long before they punched the clock on "Allen." From the dubious pen of the much loved "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane", though I find that one of the more distasteful films in horror history. But there is nothing to repel you about Allen. The answer to the title question would actually be: "Not so awful. It helped put me to sleep." The wonderful Joan Hackett is pretty much wasted too.

Terrific Made for Television movie!

[michaeldouglas1 · 10/10 · 25 March 2008]

Definitely one of the best TV movies ever produced. Creepy and atmospheric. Anthony Perkins gives a fine performance as the paranoid, semi-blind Allan. Good support from Joan Hackett as his girlfriend Olive and Julie Harris as his much put-upon sister Elizabeth. The film opens with a mysterious house-fire that kills Allan's overbearing father Raymond, leaves his sister with horrible scars, and Allan himself with psychosomatic semi-blindness. Allan is treated for months at a psychiatric clinic, then judged well enough to come home (to a decidedly unenthusiastic Elizabeth). As Allan tries to readjust and come to terms with his guilt, he begins to suspect someone is trying to kill him. Is it all in his imagination? Is it the ghost of his dead father? The mysterious new student roomer named Harold Dennis? Elizabeth's former boyfriend Eric Walters who's suddenly back in town? Catch this one on TV or buy the DVD and find out!

extremely well made psychological thriller

[oscar-35 · 11 August 2020]

*Spoiler/plot- How Awful about Alan, 1970, TV film, A man is unable to save his father from a fire that kills his father and disfigures his sister. Sent away to a mental institution for evaluation after the horrible event, the man returns later to take up residence at his sister's home. Psychoanalytically blinded by the incident, the man struggles with his daily life but finds things harder for him. Some strange incidents begin to happen to him that has people doubling his sanity.

*Special Stars- Anthony Perkins, Julie Harris, Joan Hackett.

*Theme- Trauma comes in many forms.

*Trivia/location/goofs- Now public domain intellectual property.

*Emotion- An extremely well made psychological thriller with two of the best 'I play crazy very well' method actors on the planet. While not my favorite film genre, I was pleasantly surprised how well this TV film was expertly done.

*Based On- A some classic Hitchcock suspense film genre.

ABC MOVIE OF THE WEEK: HOW AWFUL ABOUT ALLAN {TV} (Curtis Harrington, 1970) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 5/10 · 27 October 2013]

This film involves cast and crew members from two of the most influential horror films of the previous decade – star Anthony Perkins from PSYCHO (1960) and novelist/scriptwriter Henry Farrell from WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962); for the record, director Harrington would make another effort in the latter vein i.e. the superior WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN? (1971). In any case, the leading man works better here (Perkins is always worth watching) than the premise – which offers little in the way of novelty and, frankly, surprise. He plays a man half-blinded by his guilt feeling over the inability to save dad Kent Smith from a fire, an incident which also left sister (and father's favorite) Julie Harris facially scarred. Released from an institution, he discovers Harris has taken lodgers (the latest among whom he, rather unjustifiably, suspects of being hostile towards him) from the University where the siblings both teach (or used to, in his case). Living nearby is Joan Hackett, formerly Perkins' fiancée – but he resents her genuine interest, taking it for pity. As I said, the mystery (which also involves Harris' own ex-boyfriend, who may or may not be masquerading as the would-be student) – or, rather the party responsible for the protagonist's persecution – is not hard to figure out (and where even a past trauma is revealed to have been faked)…but, again, Perkins' nervous acting (he has not yet gone the over-the-top route that would occupy the latter part of his career, a less subtle but equally compelling approach and one that I suspect will be at the forefront in THE SINS OF DORIAN GRAY {1983}, another made-for-TV movie of his I will be getting to presently) makes it all worthwhile for the duration.

Slow, dull and lacking in the fire of the opening.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 15 September 2015]

Poor Anthony Perkins. Practically blinded by a fire which killed his father is in the opening scene, his time in a mental hospital has left him off worse. Paranoia and blurry visions of somebody who may or not be there, spooky voices and sudden accidents give the audience the impression that somebody is trying to gaslight him. is it Julie Harris, his sister scarred in the fire, claiming that she doesn't blame him? Joan Hackett, his old girlfriend from across the street? A mysterious man who was an associate of his scientist father and apparently somehow involved with Harris? The supposed presence of a border adds to the mystery which can be solved very easily by the viewer, taking away any suspense. Of course, casting the mad man of "Psycho" opposite the heroine of "The Haunting" seems like a good idea, and they manage to keep their dignity intact. Joan Hackett manages to come off lovely as the neighbor. The ending gives Perkins the typical scary close-up which by now seemed mandatory in his movies, and sadly revealed the direction in which his career was going. Fortunately, as an Aaron Spelling movie of the week, it was free to audiences, fitting perfectly into a 90 minute time-slot and giving commercials for potty and snack breaks, something that movie audiences had to do before the feature started. Of course, theater goers could just walk out, while T.V. viewers could just remain on their couch and just change the channel.

Anthony Perkins is home from the institution (again)...trouble follows!

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 1 August 2015]

After surviving a house fire which killed his father and scarred his unmarried sister, Anthony Perkins is sent away to the state hospital with psychosomatic blindness; he returns home eight months later, still with blurry vision, only to find sibling Julie Harris acting suspiciously about a new boarder in the house, a college student who has checked in without belongings and creeps around at night. The biggest sin a suspense-thriller can commit is in not giving its audience enough turns of the screw. Perkins sees shadowy figures and hears his name being called out in a ghostly whisper, but any lover of mystery stories will be able to see right through writer Henry Farrell's scenario. Nicely-produced for a TV-movie (with a few visual nods to Hitchcock's "Psycho"), and with a good cast that includes Joan Hackett as a former sweetheart and do-gooder, but it doesn't add up to much.

Different interpretation

[midge56 · 8/10 · 28 November 2012]

Don't read public reviews if you don't like spoilers. I think it is downright dumb to complain about spoilers on 40 year old films.

I really liked this Hitchcockian style thriller with Anthony Perkins. You can find it on those inexpensive 100 pack scifi/horror DVD-sets.

I have a different interpretation of the ending than the other viewers. Yes, Perkins had that Psycho moment expression on his face as he reads the end of his sister's letter. However, when he gets to the part where she wants to come home, his face begins to droop at the prospect of having her home again. She also tells him she needs him to take the necessary steps to get her released.

At that point, his eyesight begins to fail again and his face droops unhappily again. Frankly, I disagree that the blindness was ever pretend and rather was the fear of having his crazy sister return which caused him to lose his sight again. Plus, there was satisfaction in the fact that he could not sponsor her release as she had requested, if he was disabled again. She would have to stay there.

I believe the grin, just before his sight disappears is in regard to her reference as to how she didn't like it at the hospital and reminding him how he had disliked it as well. I believe the smile at that moment was in regard to the irony of her getting a taste of her own medicine since she had tried to force his reconfinement there by terrorizing him. Who would want a houseguest like that? Regardless of relation. Not to mention how convincing she was in hiding her insanity in the first place. How hard would it be for her to feign sanity again?

His eyesight loss was always a condition of his mind. It's a wonder he didn't have other issues considering the relationship between his evil sister and father. There is the possibility that the second blindness at the end was on purpose but not the first time after the fire.

Anytime we see Perkins smile on a film, we are always going to be reminded of Norman Bates. So we should think twice about tying that into an underlying theme when he plays a character role.

enjoyable acting, suspenseful average shocker, a bit of a Hitchcock semitone, lousy script

[Cristi_Ciopron · 5/10 · 4 February 2015]

It is a story about brothers' mutual hate, and for this they picked two extraordinary actors, who get the most out of the script. The prepared twist, and the 2nd twist, are rather random. Perkins' character isn't selfish or manipulative, but psychotic, a moral evaluation is meaningless. People mostly don't expect anything from him; such is the case with the psychotics, and this enhances the cold void around them. There's a short scene straight out of Hitchcock (Allan driving, during his psychotic breakdown), but otherwise the whole teleplay has a certain restrained Hitchcock feel to it …; the best thing in it are the actors, and they do make us wish to know better what life must have been like in that home before one died and two were injured, it's intriguing, Julie Harris does a masterly role.

There's a tempest, fever, dream sequences, a suggestion of incest (between Katherine and her dad).

Is he being driven over the edge by someone or is it all in his sick, sick mind?

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 3 November 2016]

In many ways, "How Awful About Allan" is a lot like "Strait-Jacket" and "Psycho II". All involve someone getting out of a psychiatric hospital and being haunted by voice from the past. And, in each you wonder is the main character losing their mind...or is someone orchestrating all this.

When the film begins, there is a fire and Allan's father is killed and his sister badly scarred. During the fire, Allan freezes and suffers from hysterical blindness--and he continues to be hysterically blind for some time afterwards--even after he spends a stint under psychiatric care. However, he's just been discharged and his sister (Julie Harris) brings Allan to his new home. But like the other films, Allan is soon haunted by voices that blame him for the accident and he seems to be teetering on the edge of sanity.

Aside from being a bit far fetched and familiar, the film is actually much better than I'd expected. It ends well and the movie is among the better installments of "The ABC Movie of the Week".