This is almost but not quite an experimental art movie, notable for being created largely in post-production. Its theme, highly unusual for the time, is a horrific mix of numerology and a Romany curse. Its most unsatisfactory and mundane aspect is its narrative. In a cramped set Terence Alexander talks an awful lot about his old university pal (Denis Webb), whose family was cursed by the number nine. But the flashbacks are done with real creative flair. Alexander prowls a ruin of considerable grandeur, probably a haunt of director Robert Henryson, whose CV includes other films about stately homes. The rest of the flashback footage is a blend of stock footage, superimpositions, inserts and still pictures, sometimes overlaid with eerie special effects. Henryson manages to overlay a non-existent "Druid" window on to a real country house and then burn it down by optical work. The lack of credits imply that he did most of the backroom work himself. The impression is of a primitive version of the kind of CGI done without a second thought today in young directors' bedrooms. Horror historians should add this to their watch list. PS Three years later Alexander was back in a very similar role in "Hands of Destiny" q.v.
7 Reviews
Quirky, little-seen oddity tackles the subject of numerology
Leofwine_draca26 June 2016
DEATH IS A NUMBER is a quirky little oddity that clocks in at just fifty minutes and seems to have been seen by very few people. The film's subject matter is numerology, with Terence Alexander the office-bound narrator who gives the viewer an introduction to the subject. Most of the running time is taken up by a lengthy flashback sequence showing how one man's life is affected by one single number - the number nine.
This is very much a sister project to HANDS OF DESTINY, which looked at palmistry and also starred Alexander, although that was more involved. DEATH IS NUMBER is more of a traditional, genteel horror film, in which an innocent character is driven out of his mind when he realises his aspirations in life are to be thoroughly thwarted. There are a few spooky moments here achieved via some basic special effects work, although it does all hold together quite well and is never as poor as you expect it to be.
This is very much a sister project to HANDS OF DESTINY, which looked at palmistry and also starred Alexander, although that was more involved. DEATH IS NUMBER is more of a traditional, genteel horror film, in which an innocent character is driven out of his mind when he realises his aspirations in life are to be thoroughly thwarted. There are a few spooky moments here achieved via some basic special effects work, although it does all hold together quite well and is never as poor as you expect it to be.
British oddity
BandSAboutMovies16 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Death Is A Number is one strange movie. It's a combination of inserts, stock footage and still photos, all superimposed and layered on top of one another, along with a framing opening and close, that relates the curse that the number nine has placed upon a family, including the race car driving friend of the film's main character. It's like nothing I've ever seen before.
Director Robert Henryson only made documentaries about homes after this, which makes it even stranger. It's around 51 minutes of just plain odd, with Terence Alexander playing the numerologist. He'd go on to play in another film about a palm reading expert, 1954's Hands of Destiny.
Charles Shaw, who wrote this, would work with Henryson again on The Stately Homes of Kent, an exploration of Ightham Mote and the Manor House of Knowle. The host of this movie? Terence Alexander. This leads me to believe that these guys all somehow snuck out of working on a paying gig, filmed this strange occult movie on the sly, then went back to their day jobs.
Director Robert Henryson only made documentaries about homes after this, which makes it even stranger. It's around 51 minutes of just plain odd, with Terence Alexander playing the numerologist. He'd go on to play in another film about a palm reading expert, 1954's Hands of Destiny.
Charles Shaw, who wrote this, would work with Henryson again on The Stately Homes of Kent, an exploration of Ightham Mote and the Manor House of Knowle. The host of this movie? Terence Alexander. This leads me to believe that these guys all somehow snuck out of working on a paying gig, filmed this strange occult movie on the sly, then went back to their day jobs.
One Of The Worst British Features
aliandweb20 July 2001
A good contender for possibly the worst British feature film of all time (although 'Peter's Friends' makes me cringe as well). An interesting plot about a man suffering from a numerological curse is rendered ridiculous by the ludicrously low budget. The film has narration from Terence Alexander throughout as he hangs out in an office relating the plot and all the action occurs off screen, you just have to make do with Terence's rundown and endless shots of him writing mathematical sums on a piece of paper. There is lots of mismatched stock footage and even stills with poor ghostly animation over the top, as if the budget would not even at times stretch to moving images. It's a bit like listening to a radio play while someone projects random images onto a wall. An underwhelming experience.
Rubbished-9letters
malcolmgsw16 July 2016
Is this the worst B film ever made.It is difficult to understand what the producers were up to other than supporting a decent A feature and getting a good share of Eady Levy.There cannot be any other explanation of this utter load of tripe.Difficult to know whether laughable or irritating is the most apt description of this waste of celluloid.The dialogue is laughable woefully acted.Irritating because much of it is narrated by an over made up Terence Alexander.One wonders what the audience in the one and nines would have made about this.Probably chattering nineteen to the dozen,if they weren't bowled over like ninepins.
The limply imparted idea of an idea makes for exceptionally weak "storytelling."
I_Ailurophile14 October 2023
There are two levels of horror here. One is the notion of being born under a curse, or at least dying under one. The other is the recognition that people in real life subscribe to the sort of pseudoscience that this film dallies with. The fact of the latter rather compounds the power of the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to enjoy such a feature, just as is true for exorcism flicks, or ghost-hunting whats-its. 'Death is a number' quite emphasizes the flimflam by denoting the arbitrary esoteric values assigned to various numbers under numerology, and further weaving in additional woo like astrology. Suffice to say it's an uphill battle to enjoy this on the basis of the premise alone, but still we try to set aside reality for works of fiction, and we try to do so here just as well.
There is also the matter of the approach to the presentation, framed as a character relating and narrating the tale of an ill-fated friend. That conversation fills a substantial amount of what is already an abbreviated runtime, naturally leaving less for the course of events being described, and there is sometimes a second layer of framing as top-level character Alan relates and narrates a conversation in which a supporting character also relates and narrates their own experiences. Figure in the very light tone commonly seen in genre fare of the 40s and 50s, dampening any discrete goings-on or would-be atmosphere, and the uphill battle to enjoy the picture is made all the steeper. This applies just as much to the fact that the narration covers broad ideas at least as much as specific events, and probably more.
We are, at least, treated to excellent filming locations, and nice art direction. 'Death is a number' is capably made from a technical standpoint. And by all means, the general concept is primed for horror storytelling: a saga of curses, injury and death, paranoia, madness, and a fundamental dark side to the structure of reality. Regrettably, I don't think there's all that much that the cast, crew, or filmmaker Robert Henryson can do with a narrative that's so vague and amorphous as what Charles K. Shaw penned. The screenplay is effectively the cinematic equivalent of friends sitting around a campfire, telling scary stories, and the nefariousness that one person volunteers is nothing more than asking their audience to "Think about ghosts." What are we viewers supposed to do with this movie?
This 1951 flick was rather evidently made cheaply, more out of hope to make a quick buck than to tell an earnest story. It could have been much more worthy and memorable had it been made in a more conventional manner, portraying events more than just speaking of them, and dropping the constant narration outright or at least exchanging it for, say, the ramblings of a primary character driven to desperation by his experiences. As it is, the storytelling feels weak, scattered, and halfhearted, and seemingly believes itself more clever than it is yet nevertheless relies on that imagined cleverness to carry the day. What vibrancy the narrative could have had in its ideal form is reduced to "Oh, that was kind of a neat idea." 'Death is a number,' as it presents, is a film robbed of every last trace of its potential.
There were good ideas here, truly, but film-making and storytelling of this fashion might well be the most useless and impotent of all possible approaches to film-making and storytelling. We're given the thought of a thought, but it's barely enough to hold one's attention on a basic level, let alone drive engagement or major investment. The horror here is purely thematic, and not something that is meaningfully actualized for the audience. There are worse ways to spend one's time, yet I can't help be frustrated at how strangely and completely the concept was squandered. Seventy years later, 'Death is a number' is a title best set aside as a curiosity for the ardent cinephile, and not something that anyone else particularly needs to see. The premise is enticing, but the end result simply is not.
There is also the matter of the approach to the presentation, framed as a character relating and narrating the tale of an ill-fated friend. That conversation fills a substantial amount of what is already an abbreviated runtime, naturally leaving less for the course of events being described, and there is sometimes a second layer of framing as top-level character Alan relates and narrates a conversation in which a supporting character also relates and narrates their own experiences. Figure in the very light tone commonly seen in genre fare of the 40s and 50s, dampening any discrete goings-on or would-be atmosphere, and the uphill battle to enjoy the picture is made all the steeper. This applies just as much to the fact that the narration covers broad ideas at least as much as specific events, and probably more.
We are, at least, treated to excellent filming locations, and nice art direction. 'Death is a number' is capably made from a technical standpoint. And by all means, the general concept is primed for horror storytelling: a saga of curses, injury and death, paranoia, madness, and a fundamental dark side to the structure of reality. Regrettably, I don't think there's all that much that the cast, crew, or filmmaker Robert Henryson can do with a narrative that's so vague and amorphous as what Charles K. Shaw penned. The screenplay is effectively the cinematic equivalent of friends sitting around a campfire, telling scary stories, and the nefariousness that one person volunteers is nothing more than asking their audience to "Think about ghosts." What are we viewers supposed to do with this movie?
This 1951 flick was rather evidently made cheaply, more out of hope to make a quick buck than to tell an earnest story. It could have been much more worthy and memorable had it been made in a more conventional manner, portraying events more than just speaking of them, and dropping the constant narration outright or at least exchanging it for, say, the ramblings of a primary character driven to desperation by his experiences. As it is, the storytelling feels weak, scattered, and halfhearted, and seemingly believes itself more clever than it is yet nevertheless relies on that imagined cleverness to carry the day. What vibrancy the narrative could have had in its ideal form is reduced to "Oh, that was kind of a neat idea." 'Death is a number,' as it presents, is a film robbed of every last trace of its potential.
There were good ideas here, truly, but film-making and storytelling of this fashion might well be the most useless and impotent of all possible approaches to film-making and storytelling. We're given the thought of a thought, but it's barely enough to hold one's attention on a basic level, let alone drive engagement or major investment. The horror here is purely thematic, and not something that is meaningfully actualized for the audience. There are worse ways to spend one's time, yet I can't help be frustrated at how strangely and completely the concept was squandered. Seventy years later, 'Death is a number' is a title best set aside as a curiosity for the ardent cinephile, and not something that anyone else particularly needs to see. The premise is enticing, but the end result simply is not.
A Real Oddity...
ronevickers23 February 2007
First of all, it's rather difficult to disagree with the previous reviewer over much of his comments. However, despite glaringly obvious faults, this little offering is not without some merit. Admittedly, it seems to have been cobbled together one afternoon, when everyone concerned was sheltering from a heavy downpour, but it still manages to convey a certain creepy atmosphere of its very own. This was probably brought about by the very nature of its basic, scraped-together production. In the lead role, Terence Alexander plays the part literally as if he is learning the art of acting by numbers! In spite of the grainy, crackly print, his wife (Lesley Ormond)still manages to look fetching in her best ball gown! The tour-de-force is provided by the butler, who looks and sounds as though he is an escaped mechanical waxwork model from Madame Tussauds!! And, although the narrative is stilted to say the least, and the stock footage decidedly dodgy, the film does manage to steadily move along towards quite an effectively shiver-inducing climax. It is very very difficult to track down but, for any fans of this genre, this brief little oddity is worth a look.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
